The Shotgun Blog
« When life is all doom and gloom | Main | The first great YouTube video of the Ontario campaign »
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Calgary mayor says 'no' to supporting the troops
CALGARY/AM770CHQR - A bid to have "support our troops" decals allowed on city vehicles has been shot down again.
Alderman Ric McIver introduced the motion, but Mayor Dave Bronconnier told council it was a matter of reconsidering the issue.
McIver took exception to that and challenged the Mayor's ruling which resulted in a vote.
Council voted down the challenge and the motion was turfed.
It was reported that Mayor Bronconnier called the troop decal issue "the flavour of the month" and brushed aside any further reference to it.
Alderman McIver suggested that this ought to be a political issue, as indeed it is.
I am working for mayoral candidate Sandy Jenkins, a local businessman and community leader, who is to announce this evening that if elected he will support city workers who wish to place "Support our troops" decals on their vehicles. Further to this, Jenkins will also advocate for those who sport veteran designs on their plates to be able to park on the city streets for up to two hours for no charge whatsoever.
Any Calgarian who supports these two initiatives are encouraged to attend Sandy Jenkins' campaign launch tonight at the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 264, located at 1910 Kensinton Road NW, at 7:00 pm.
Join up with Sandy's team and show the mayor that our troops are far from being "the flavour of the month".
Posted by Rob Huck on September 11, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54ef02fae8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Calgary mayor says 'no' to supporting the troops:
Comments
SOS
Stuck On Stupid
Posted by: tomax7 | 2007-09-11 2:45:15 PM
Gotta say I like the free parking for vets. Good luck Sandy.
Posted by: Furious George | 2007-09-11 2:45:16 PM
If the City won't put labels on their vehicles, then it's up to the citizens to do it on their vehicles. As many cars and trucks as possible in Calgary, and Alberta as a whole, should show a sign of supporting the troops. if the Toronto people, who supported the 9/11 attacks and have continually shown their contempt for the troops can do it, then Albertans - who have always given Canada their best - must pick up the slack...again.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-09-11 2:50:35 PM
There is no "decal campaign" in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia nor the entire region for that matter -
troops know the Maritimes support them, but Calgary Mayor seems out of touch, I guess Alberta Hicks need to feel that with their cheap made in China decals
it is somehow going to teach the nasties in Afghanistan and the equally nasty Socialist Horde like Dawn and the national Liberal Scum a lesson - How come ya got so many rednecks in the new west -rednecks in this Region of the old Dominion are Dion, Martin and Chretien clones - MacLeod - cheap plastic gimmicks are just not appropriate but typical.
Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2007-09-11 2:59:02 PM
Sad coming from Calgary. Maybe if the terrorists attack their oil he'll have a change of heart.
This can't be representative of the people, it's just one person and that person should go hide his sorry ass. SOS, "Stuck On Stupid", indeed.
Posted by: LizJ | 2007-09-11 3:12:06 PM
Well Jack,
I happen to think the Canadian Flag is a cheap plastic gimmick, and all the ones in the stores have a Made-in-China sticker just like the ones the LPC bought and bestowed on so many Quebecers.
The fact that there are no Maple Trees in Alberta, or that we like Blue a lot more than Liberal Red and White, doesn't have anything to do with the fact that Calgary is full of immigrants, many of whom work for the City of Calgary thanks to Liberal affirmative action hiring programs, and these immigrants not only often don't feel the need to support the troops but actually support the enemy.
In short, Muslims are required to support Muslims against Kaffirs, regardless of the circumstances, and being forced to support Infidel troops fighting against Muslims violates their freedom of speech and religion.
It's a pity you don't have the obvious richness of so many Muslim immigrants in your neck of the woods, Jack, that we have in Calgary.
I don't like Bronco, but he is just taking the path of least resistence here and saving the city costly lawsuits.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-09-11 3:35:44 PM
Good points all round Speller -one will not see multiculturalism bloom in Irving owned New Brunswick ever, friend of mine, economist from NYC
pointed out several years ago that Irving employs peons, provided by the descendents of all who settled
in the Picture Province, including Irish, Loyalists, Acadians -already got an over abundance of cheap labor, mind you all have benefited greatly thanks to the Irving Empire with modest paying permanent jobs most of which don't require much skill. They don't get rich but latest polls show NB as a happy place whatever that really means -we have always admired Mr. K.C. Irving who
\is one of Canada's great businessmen. He never liked to see a facility like the St. John Shipyard idle, so he made it work -MacLeod
Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2007-09-11 3:52:14 PM
Hey Macleod, the mayor's name is Dave Bronconnier.
As General George Patton once said;
'I'd rather have the German Army in front of me than the French Army behind me.'
Now you know why.
Posted by: rockyt | 2007-09-11 3:58:46 PM
Oh, and good luck to Sandy Jenkins.
Posted by: rockyt | 2007-09-11 4:00:46 PM
Patton is reputed to have said:
"The Canadians are the best troops the English have. And they're Americans!"
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-09-11 4:05:42 PM
Even Toronto allows troop decals. :)
Posted by: DJ | 2007-09-11 4:12:21 PM
City workers should put the decals on their City vehicles in any event and tell the arrogant dictator, Dave Bronconnier, to pound sand and see what the little fuhrer does. Interestingly, I sent an email some time ago to Alderman Helene Larocque (what is it with these French surnames?) and said if the City policy does not allow for such decals, then I am offended by the Union stickers that I see on many City vehicles and I want them removed. As usual, the pinhead didn't even respond. Of course, she is a union hack and was heavily funded by the transit union. Time to clean house down at the "Blue Whale" puzzle palace.
Posted by: John Luft | 2007-09-11 4:35:25 PM
That's why ALL unions must be decertified, especially in the public arena. They are just thugs, akin to the mafia.
Posted by: obc | 2007-09-11 4:37:19 PM
The Youtube Clip
Posted by: Alnoor Supporter | 2007-09-11 5:05:23 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RCOxZZ5DGFQ
Posted by: The Youtube | 2007-09-11 5:06:19 PM
Geez, Calgary's mayor is just as big a d!ck as Toronto's!
At least Toronto's mayor "alowed" the support decals.
Posted by: Hoser | 2007-09-11 6:37:41 PM
I find it very ironic that former liberal candidate and now mayor Bronconnier refers to this motion as flavour of the month.He just named September as "support the troops month". Elections are coming up in October,I don't see him having a challenge but it would be nice to see a few changes on city council.
Posted by: wallyj | 2007-09-11 9:05:33 PM
I too am running for City Council in Ward 7 and I am sorry I missed your event tonite. Over the past 2 months I have organized 2 events in suppport of the troops and the decals.
way to go!
www.terleski7.com
Posted by: Merle | 2007-09-11 9:28:33 PM
Anyone can say they support the troops. It means very little. I can say I support the troops while meaning that I want them brought home so that no more may be killed. Now if you came out with a decal that said "Support the Mission", that would mean something to me and to the troops. Most of them think that they are doing something worthwhile and they are.
Posted by: DML | 2007-09-11 10:44:46 PM
I take the contrary view.
I don't think the City of Calgary should have gone anywhere near this issue. It doesn't involve traffic lights, potholes, swimming pools or any other municipal issue. I know they've taken positions on other things that aren't their business, but it's time to put a stop to it. I want the city to attend to city matters.
John Luft, it would be wrong for city employees to put the decals on their city-owned vehicles. Whether anyone likes the decision or not, the vehicles are the property of the city; they get to decide what can or cannot go on their property. In this case, the city has said "No".
Posted by: Kathryn | 2007-09-12 2:39:34 PM
What a pack of juvenile jerks we have running our various Municipalities around the country.
If they even have to discuss the matter,forget it. If I were a military person fighting for the country I'd tell them to go to hell.
The very idea that we have men and women fighting in a dangerous war and people are reluctant to support them publicly is hugely troubling. Who are they afraid of offending? It's not the Troops or their families so it's gotta be the Socialists who don't like fighting no matter the cause and the enemies among us, and we have imported plenty.
Posted by: LizJ | 2007-09-12 4:33:45 PM
way too many transplanted easterners in calgary lapping up the petro dollars and dragging their "enlightened" pinko arrogance baggage with them. one can only hope that the real calgarians will turf mayor bronconnier so far from office that he lands in toronto where he belongs. just another shiftless weasel trolling for votes among the useful idiots.
Posted by: robert | 2007-09-13 8:43:36 PM
Anyone who doesn't think the insidious sickness that is liberalism is not becoming a factor in Alberta had better wake up and smell the coffee.
Its obvious this asshat Bronconnier has his sights set on the provincial liberal leadership.
Once he is done f###ing up Calgary, that will be his next target.
I fear because of the influx of transients, and of course they bring their baggage and politics with them, it may already be to late to stop the slow slide to oblivion.
Cities are the downfall of any democracy, and one already see the socialism taking hold in the large cities of Alberta.
Keep in mind it was the council who voted it down, not just this loser. Just more libs making a statement.
The media has long been far left even in Alberta, just before no one was paying attention.
Now they are gaining an audience.
Posted by: deepblue | 2007-09-14 6:54:35 AM
Regarding the above comment, what General Patton must have forgotten, was that if it hadn't been for the French Army, there would have been no USA in the first place. Read your history books!
Posted by: dundee | 2007-09-28 6:25:07 PM
. . . and if not for the US in WWI & WWII, the French would be speaking German today.
The original debt has been doubly repaid.
Posted by: obc | 2007-09-28 6:28:29 PM
I support our troops, and the free parking for veterans and all that has been proposed, but these redneck comments above are incredible. Statistically Calgary has the best educated population of any Canadian city, but it seems that few of your readers have more than a grade eight education. You are giving our city this redneck image, Aren't you ashamed!
Posted by: dundee | 2007-09-28 7:47:53 PM
I agree with WWII, but the USA didn't enter WWI until the last moment, so you are half right, I amit!
Posted by: dundee | 2007-09-28 7:50:02 PM
It is true that the French Army was quickly defeated by the Germans in 1940, but also true that their British allies abandoned them and ran away from Dunkirk. At that time the Americans were still deciding which side they were going to support.Thank God for FDR.
Posted by: dundee | 2007-09-28 9:23:35 PM
obc is correct - the debt the US owed to France for its support during the Revolution was repaid twice over, in WW1 (when an American officer said "Lafayette, we are here" upon his arrival in France) and in WW2. Need I mention the extensive US support for the French in Indochina and Algeria?
The US may have only sent troops in 1917-1918, but they had been financing the British and French since 1915. So bear that in mind. Without American financing and war production, the British and French would have been bankrupted by 1916.
It is unfair to say that the French were abandoned at Dunkirk. Many fought as long as they could to protect the evacuation. Moreover, sixty thousand French soldiers were evacuated - about 1/5th of the total. It is a miracle, and a testament to the brilliant and improvised management of the evacuation by the British, that any Allied soldier made it back to England.
It is an atrocity to suggest that the US was divided on who to support during its neutrality from 1939-41. Their sympathies were clearly with the Allies, even allowing the British and French to purchase war supplies through the 'cash and carry' policy. The Germans did not have this ability. Neither did the Germans receive Lend-Lease. So consider that before making such ridiculous assertions.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-09-28 11:15:15 PM
"Statistically Calgary has the best educated population of any Canadian city, but it seems that few of your readers have more than a grade eight education."
That may be true dunderhead, you may be educated but your automatic, ridiculous Anti-Americanism lay's you bare as someone who simply overlooks the facts to suit your built in pregidous. So instead of sounding educated you come off sounding like a bumbling idiot.
Allow this "redneck" to enlighten someone obviously more intelligent than I on a few facts about WW2.
The British hardly ran and left the French behind, despite dire warnings from the British and even their own intelligence the French, who felt safe and secure behind their "Maginot line" did not consider Hitler a threat and did nothing to prepare for the oncoming onslaught.
The Germans exercising their new form of warfare the Blitzkrieg, simply went around the Maginot line cutting off the French and sending them into total disarray.
Their target after that was the British army as it was the only functional fighting force they feared. As was mentioned above, only by fighting a brilliant rearguard action and a timely rescue by the British navy was the BEF and the French soldiers who were wise enough to retreat with the British were saved to fight another day.
FDR recognized early the threat Hitler posed and tried in vain to wake up his country to the threat. The "people" saw it as someone else's war "over there" (sound familiar?) and he could gain no support to enter the fray.
But that did not stop him, as was mentioned above he entered into the lend lease program in which ships and war materials were sent to Britain on a simple IOU.
He took the opportunity to send the ships and material with large American navel escorts which had no problem engaging the enemy if it could. (of course today shrieks of outrage would be heard if such an action was taken, particularly a republican president).
Of course all that changed when the Americans were attacked at Pearl Harbor jarring people into the reality that their actually was a war going on. (of course today it would be implied FDR attacked pearl harbor himself simply to enter into a war only he wanted) and the Americans officially went to war against not only Japan, but Germany and Italy as well with full support of the congress. (imagine that, two countries that never attacked the US, imagine the outrage today). Much like the full support Bush received going into Iraq.
The Russians as well as the British Army were suffering defeat after defeat at the time the American army came on the scene, and although the British Canadian and Russian Armies fought bravely, and brilliantly, it was the wave of American soldiers and materials that turned the tide in WW2.
The Americans at the beginning were mauled by the experienced Germans till they became battle hardened as well. The landings at Normandy which of course was the major turning point of the war, would never have came off without the Americans.
At the peak of WW2 the Americans had nearly 16 million men under arms, that's right, 16 million, which is why it is so laughable to hear today's shrieking about how the American army, in a rather minor skirmish by war standards, are somehow losing to a bunch of cave dwelling terrorists. Simply laughable.
There are many parallels and lessons that can be drawn from that era and today's era.
Foremost is the simple fact if preemptive action would have been taken when Hitler first began his aggression, millions of lives would have been saved.
But these days Hitler would have been allowed to speak at a leading university in the US in the name of free speech instead of being thrown in Jail.
Probably the thing that stands out the most is the different standard to which leaders are now held. FDR and indeed JFK, of course both democrats were patriots. They used the word god in their speeches and were god fearing men.
They would recoil in shock and horror if they saw what has become of their party, and their country.
These guys would have both been considered far right of Bush in today's world. Much like Lieberman they would have been castigated and ran out of their own party, now the party that openly despises their own country, its history, its military and its constitution.
Watching the ridiculous hype on Iraq it is easy to see the people have learned nothing.
And what has Canada learned? At the end of WW2 Canada had one of the fiercest and most well respected army's in the world as well as one of the worlds largest navy.
The Americans used WW2 to launch themselves into becoming the most eminent superpower in the world while the Canadians brought in liberal governments who preceded to tear Canada's military to pieces. Culminating in the election of one PET, an avid WW2 war protester and admitted communist who put the finishing touches on the tearing down of Canada as a world force.
So before you go shrieking about how well educated you are, and running others down, arm yourself with a few facts. All of the above stuff is on record and easily researched.
Posted by: deepblue | 2007-09-29 8:27:06 AM
deepblue ~
Well said! BRAVO!
Posted by: obc | 2007-09-29 9:00:26 AM
Deepblue said:
"of course today it would be implied FDR attacked pearl harbor himself simply to enter into a war only he wanted."
Not today - that same accusation was made as far back as 1948. It has since been rejected when the Japanese opened their records and, in fact, it turns out that Pearl Harbor was their idea from the start. Who knew!
I appreciate that you give the US a lot of credit for the Allied victory in WWII. Some of these Trudeauists from Tronna give Canada all the credit - but that just shows their ignorance.
I give the credit to three national efforts, the USSR, the UK and the US. Each made incredible political, financial, industrial and human efforts to stop the Axis, yet each was dependent in some way on the others. Let me explain:
1) the USSR paid an exorbitant cost in the war. Its people suffered horribly either from Nazi extermination policies, Stalin's death squads, or from military casualties. They placed millions of men (and women) into the war who knew that being taken prisoner was a death sentence, making the war even more costly. More Russians died at Stalingrad than the western allies would lose in the entire war. They fought 80% of the Axis armies and did a superb job of it.
However, they could not have done that by themselves. The Russians needed Lend-Lease as well as the British, and the Americans (with some British help) gave them billions of dollars in weapons, trucks, aircraft, and trains, in addition to other supplies. While the Russians were unwilling to admit this during the Cold War, their armies required Allied help to wage the war.
2) the United Kingdom mobilized all it had just to stay alive during the war. It was perhaps the most mobilized country of the war - civilian conscription for war industries was a necessity since almost all of the available manpower was fighting - and paying a heavy cost. Lend-lease was an absolute necessity to keep their armies in the field. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India aided these efforts.
Despite this poverty, the UK held the line until 1943 when the US entered the war. Churchill took an enormous gamble by continuing to wage war in the Middle East and the Mediterranean. Britain could ill-afford defeats, but they needed victories to sustain morale at home. A lesser leader would have decided to wait for a return to the continent, but Churchill decided to carry on where he could, even if operations in Greece were disastrous. Without American aid and Churchill's leadership, the British Empire would have been defeated in 1940-41. Instead, they carried on and provided the world with a shining example of the resolve of free peoples.
3) the United States. American economic aid to the Soviets and the British should not detract from its incredible military efforts. The US put 16 million men and women into the war, providing most of the effort in the Pacific and more than half in Europe and the Mediterranean. Without their assistance, the Allies never would have been able to take the offensive in the west.
That said, they needed bases from which to launch that offensive. The survival of Britain, stated above, and the liberation of North Africa, made that possible. The Soviets helped by tying down large numbers of German troops in the east.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-09-29 9:18:11 AM
"The Russians needed Lend-Lease"
Yes, but they spent valuable time obliterating "Made in the USA" from everything that was sent them so their own people would not realize where all this aid came from.
Posted by: obc | 2007-09-29 9:25:35 AM
ZP,
I agree with everything you say, I was not discounting the efforts of the other allies and made mention of the three countries you speak of.
Actually one stands out for me, and you make mention of it, and that is the enormous sacrifice in men and material that the Russians suffered.
The civilian population suffered in a large part as well as the Germans saw the Russians as subhuman, and entire villages were exterminated by the follow up SS troops.
The size of the battles the Germans and Russians engaged in shocked the western generals, as did the massive casualties the Russians suffered, and still they fought on. The Red Army suffered some five million battlefield casualties and a further two million from non-battle causes during 1944 alone.
The Russians suffered by far the most casualties of WW2, both militarily and civilian.
It was they who provided the original second front, which saw the success of Normandy, which in all likelihood would have been repelled if the full might of the Wehrmacht could have been brought to bear.
My original point is much the same as yours, the Allies prevailed because they stuck together and helped each other out.
Watching the ridiculous partisanship that prevails in the west today a battle like WW2 could never have been won.
Only a united stand against terrorism and despotism by the major powers of the world, will bring the peace these limp wristed lefties want so badly.
Anti-Americanism, and condemning the only country, and the only president with the knads to stand up and be counted against the forces of evil these days is hardly productive, and will spell disaster in the end.
Posted by: deepblue | 2007-09-29 10:26:50 AM
So deepblue thinks the media has long been far left even in Alberta; really? Seriously? For an attitude adjustment try listening to Rutherford or Adler on QR77. Far left? Do your friends, if you have any, have difficulty in getting to their destinations following your directions?
And mayoral candidate Sandy Jenkins would advocate for free parking for cars sporting veteran plates. That's to compensate them for the dangerous assignments they carried out while stationed all over Canada? Wow, and to think I was going to vote for him.
DJ
Posted by: Dave Hughes | 2007-10-04 1:46:20 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.