The Shotgun Blog
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Red Ensign Standard
A summation of some of the best the Canadian blogosphere has had to offer these past two weeks is up at Tipperography.
Posted by Rob Huck on March 29, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Red Ensign Standard:
Its a no brainer. WE have the red maple leaf. We are not going back. We are moving ahead.
Posted by: Joe Green | 2005-03-29 11:19:03 AM
Thanks for the comment, Joe. Enlightening as always.
Posted by: Rob Huck | 2005-03-29 11:26:12 AM
Then there is this via the Red Ensign.
"So what's a libertarian anyway?
I'm not sure that this is really the image we want to project. On the other hand, it might be good for recruiting to the cause.
[A] Libertarian [is] a Democrat who wants to own a gun, or a Republican who wants to smoke pot."
I could not have said it better myself.
This sort of "libertarian" is "innocent". Then there are the corrupt kind we call "neocons".
Most Libertarians are "neocons". The Cheney - Rumsfeld - Wolfwitz - Perle - Bolton sort of "libertarians" are all "neocon" "artists".
No redeeming social value whatsoever.
Posted by: Joe Green | 2005-03-29 1:45:11 PM
More anti-americanism, anti-semitism from you-know-who.
Joe who? No. Joe Red-Green.
What is the Green Party? Hint: it is like a watermelon: green on the outside; red on the inside.
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-03-29 1:59:39 PM
Joe: Thanks for pointing our that a) we have the maple leaf and b) one moves forward when not moving backward.
Posted by: Peter | 2005-03-29 2:00:01 PM
"What is the Green Party? Hint: it is like a watermelon: green on the outside; red on the inside."
You sound like Peter Weissbach, the former Program Manager of Radio Station CJCA in Edmonton and a "neocon". He managed it right into the ground and right off the air, the oldest Radio Station in Western Canada. And of course, he did it all before in the US before coming to Canada.
It explains a lot about the other drivel you have been posting here.
Posted by: Joe Green | 2005-03-29 4:33:21 PM
When are you folks gonna learn to ignore Joe Green. Joe is a typical attention chaser and loves an audience. And he is getting it here.
Wanna get rid of him?? Ignore him. When you come to his comments dont read them, just skip over them and move on to the next one. Joe won't stand for very long not getting the attention he needs and will look for a new audience.
Posted by: MikeP | 2005-03-29 5:00:50 PM
Funny you should mention that MikeP. I even know who Joe Green, were he works, what floor and department he's in. Hint..hint... oanet went bankrupt a couple of years back. He isn't even from Alberta, which he has so often claims.
Posted by: rob | 2005-03-29 6:15:32 PM
When are you folks gonna learn to ignore Joe Green
Apparently never, we're all crazy libertarians,pathological liars, neo-cons, a spade, a shovel, worship at a church of some sort, worship Mammon, luv Americans, chameleons and lizards. We need J.G. to show us the way.Bye Bye
Posted by: mr | 2005-03-29 9:07:42 PM
Until Canada ceases harming Alberta, its flag should not fly over our land. It worked for Newfoundland, it will work for us.
The Red Ensign is a symbol of white supremacy now, which is why Ontario keeps it (why Manitoba, why?)
Alberta should also come up with its own national anthem to sing at public events. Canada's racist song is unwelcome here.
Posted by: Scott | 2005-03-30 4:58:00 AM
rob wrote this:
"Funny you should mention that MikeP. I even know who Joe Green, were he works, what floor and department he's in. Hint..hint... oanet went bankrupt a couple of years back. He isn't even from Alberta, which he has so often claims."
Rob, you don't. And if you say that I am not from Alberta, then you have the wrong "Joe Green". I was born in Alberta, I was raised in Alberta, I have worked most of my life in Alberta, and I will die in Alberta.
Like I said, "neocons" are liars. You post proves it. Beyond doubt. Beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Separtists and "neocons" cannot handle the truth. And the truth is that almost all Canadians living in Alberta love their country.
Posted by: Joe Green | 2005-03-30 7:36:39 AM
See the maple leaves have not won a game this season.
Also, molson is best beer in manitiaba but not in saksstatchewan.
ABC sucks wine bottles; Kaybec doesn't count; mangez
le ma[ple syrup. Up with Louis Real hes a dead white man, isn't he?
Canadian history, eh turkeys. Cod lovers all.
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-03-30 7:47:00 AM
"Separtists and "neocons" cannot handle the truth. And the truth is that almost all Canadians living in Alberta love their country."
But what happens when their country stops loving them?
Albertans try to love their country, but when it prevents them from having jobs, homes, and prosperous futures, what's the point of patriotism? Thats the kind of thing that happened when the 13 Colonies decided to tell King George III to go to hell.
It's amazing - many Albertans have fought and died for Canada, and all they do is stab us in the back at every turn. Patriotism towards Canada is a form of self-loathing. The time has come to leave and seek our own way.
Posted by: Scott | 2005-03-30 7:50:02 AM
Poor Scott the Separtist is confused when he asks
"But what happens when their country stops loving them?"
Alberta enjoys the highest provincial income in Canada, and Canada is the best country on earth in which to live. Canadian cities regularly outperform American ones, and even European ones.
If Alberta were treated in Canada the way Ukraine was treated in the former Soviet Union where a fifth of its population was starved to death while the central government ransacked the food production, then there would be a legitimate complaint against the evil forces in a centralized government that did such a thing. But in Alberta, its the Provincial Government, not the Federal Government, that has committed most of the corrupt outrages against the people of this province. The BSE catastrophe for instance was all "self inflected" to curry favour with American multinational companies active in Alberta. Ralph Klein's budget cuts for BSE labs really "saved" a lot of money according to this flawed "neocon" logic. The government was too big they said. There were too many lazy civil servants they claimed. The Province would be better off by closing the labs. However that was a lie.
Well its not fair to ask other parts of Canada to pay for Conservative Ralph Klein's mistakes. Colin Powell would say "if you break it, you buy it". And the Conservatives in Alberta in the case of BSE "broke it".
Posted by: Joe Green | 2005-03-30 8:35:26 AM
"But in Alberta, its the Provincial Government, not the Federal Government, that has committed most of the corrupt outrages against the people of this province. The BSE catastrophe for instance was all "self inflected" to curry favour with American multinational companies active in Alberta"
Oh that's funny. Blame the patient for being sick.
Someone said to ignore you - I think that's a great idea because you're only contributing hot air.
When Alberta is within the freedom of the American Union, you will be allowed to leave in peace with all your property. Good luck in Tronna - the death toll there rises daily. And they don't like ALbertans much (trust me, I know).
Posted by: Scott | 2005-03-30 8:51:21 AM
Listen, for all of those who really are serious about Alberta becoming independant, it seems to be all talk no action.
Do we even have a viable Alberta First party or leader?
That's the first step. The second is to determine our priorities. Just saying we want to separate is silly, because I don't think we truly do - we just want to be treated with respect and fairness. So we should pick a few areas where we are undervalued, and change them from the inside.
An Alberta Pension Plan and Alberta Provincial Police would show the feds we are serious, and set an example for other provinces who want change but have been brainwashed to not accept a redneck Albertan opposition party under any circumstances.
Less talk and more action. We can lead change in this country from inside Alberta.
Posted by: ld | 2005-03-30 10:25:01 AM
Hey, LD, looks like firewalls 'r you too!
IMO, here's another thing Alberta can do. Ralph's latest berating at the hands of the progressives relates to his about-about face on renewing the invocation of the "notwithstanding clause" contained in the Alberta "Defense of Marriage" Act. Much ridicule was heaped upon he and his government for failing to understand it is the feds and the feds alone who are entitled under the constitution to "define" marriage. Hence, any further attempt by the province to use the "nwsc" to maintain the traditional definition of marriage would be "ultra vires" and, therefore, futile. Stupid stupid Ralph.
Except, of course, the constitution also establishes that the provinces have authority over the "solemnization" of marriage (subsection 92(12) - you could look it up).
(firewalls unable to resist the pun - when it comes to "marriage", the feds are in charge of the sodomization and the provinces are in charge of the solemnization - sorry, I'll quit now).
In short, whereas Alberta must accept the federal definition of "marriage", there is nothing preventing Alberta from exercising its "solemnization" power in such a manner as to continue to distinguish between traditional marriage and SS"M". So, for example, Alberta would be within its constitutional authority to create a separate "solemnization" procedure for SS"M" than that for traditional marriage and to issue a different license (say, a nice purple one with lots of rainbows and triangles titled "License for Those Relationships the Feds/Supremes are Forcing Us to Treat the Same as Real Marriage", or some such). Perhaps the SS"M" "solemnization" procedure would be strictly civil, i.e. in keeping with the "freedom of religion" exception to recognizing SS"M" even the Supremes (grudgingly, no doubt) acknowledge, a SS"M" could not be "solemnized" in Alberta by a religious official, but only by a civil official, like a Justice of the Peace.
As long as both Alberta "solemnization" procedures resulted in "marriage" as defined by the feds, there would be no risk of an "ultra vires" challenge and any other constitutional challenges could be addressed through invocation of the nwsc. Another simple brick in the firewall, n'est pas?
Posted by: firewalls 'r us | 2005-03-30 11:07:26 AM
Firewalls, the SSM issue should be a moot point. Ralph Klein has proved himself of no use, and I highly doubt he will help in the future. It is time to write him off, and find a new party that is dedicated to Alberta - FIRST. SSM will be all over by the time we get our [email protected]#t together, just as health care will either fall apart or be forced into some kind of rehabilitation. We need to concentrate on the provincial changes we can make first, that affect us directly. We should be setting an example for the other provinces on how to get the feds out of provincial issues.
Posted by: ld | 2005-03-30 11:39:41 AM
Giuseppe has accused yours truly of posting "drivel". Yours truly admits it: It is done, not for the money, (Darn you, Dr.S. Johnson), but for the glory, or as is said en France, pour "La Gloire".
Go here to check "daward":
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-03-30 8:12:07 PM
"Giuseppe has accused yours truly of posting "drivel". Yours truly admits it: It is done, not for the money,"
There you have it, a confession. maz2 is a smut peddlar.
Posted by: Joe Green | 2005-03-31 12:30:08 AM
Smut is here:
Bianca's smut shack.
Warning: Giuseppe: Do not go there.
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-03-31 7:49:54 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.