Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« A 56-day election | Main | Gatekeepers of the image »

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Never send to know for whom the bell tolls...

It tolls for thee...

Now the question is; Who's it gonna be?

Layton_2

'Stachioed Socialist...

**********

Martin_1

Dithers and the Cabal of Crooks...

*** OR ***

Harper_1

"Scary" Stephen

It's up to you, Canada.  You can tell the Liberals that you've had it up to your nickers with getting fleeced and lied to.  Or you can tell them that your expectations are so low, that anything they do is ok, as long as they protect you from that crazy neo-con.  Frankly, I gave up playground idiocy, after grade 2.  Since then, I have made an effort to educate myself, and make informed choices, based on static principles that hold public office holders to high standards.  You may not like Stephen Harper...you may even find him "scary" *snort*...but one thing's for sure -- He doesn't have a proven track record of  #1) raping the public purse, #2) either lying to you about it, or having no idea that it was going on, and #3) telling you at the same time, that he's doing it for your own good.

Besides...aren't you getting just a little bit tired of having your nose wiped by some Liberal bureaucrat who's getting over-paid, with your hard-earned money, to do it?  It's time to make a choice for the direction you want this country to take...and for the love of all that is holy -- don't let fear and apathy grip you -- take responsibility for the course of your nation, and your life.  Or one day, risk the true horror of not being given a choice.  Don't let others speak for you.  Speak up, for yourself.  And no matter who you side with...

Vote.  It's not a right.  It's a responsibility.

North American Patriot

Posted by Wonder Woman on November 29, 2005 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83498391169e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Never send to know for whom the bell tolls...:

Comments

A man walked into his house all black and blue, and clothes tattered, and teeth missing.

"Oh my God!", exclaimed his wife. "Bob, what happened to you?"

"It was Marty. He beat me up and stole my wallet." Bob sputtered.

"Marty? But I thought he was your friend."

"I thought so, too." said Bob, and went to bed angry and sore.

The next day, Bob returned home, again all beat up, money gone. He explained to his wife that he ran into Marty, who apologized for his disgusting actions the previous day and wanted to buy him a couple of beers to make up for it. Bob agreed, thankful to have his friend back, and not caring that the beers were paid for with his own stolen money. As they left the bar they saw Steve, a relatively new and unknown guy on the block.

" 'Stay away from that Steve guy'. Marty said to me. ' I hear he's bad news, spreading lies about me, and looking to change things around here' ".

"He went on and on about the evils of Steve to me until I was good and scared. I even wanted to start telling all my other friends everything I heard about scary Steve, since I'm sure that everything was true."

"And that's when he hit me," explained Bob. "Out of nowhere, Marty sucker-punched me, took my money, bent me over and had his way with me, and told me that he knew what was best for me. He then said that I should be careful, because Steve was even worse, if you can believe that, and that with my money, Marty could protect me from scary Steve. I just don't know what to think."

Bob's wife didn't know what to say. She had heard rumours about scary Steve already, like how he was from out of town and other scary stuff. She knew that what Marty had done was horrible, but that scary Steve sounded even worse. Also, she knew that Marty had very important and rich friends (in fact Marty himself was a multi-millionaire) and received tax breaks on his shipping company, among other impressive stuff, so he shouldn't be doubted when he says he knows about Steve. "Maybe you should stay away from both of them," she said.

Bob thought that was a good idea, but when he left the house the next day Marty was standing half a block away to the east and Steve was a half block to the west, so Bob had no choice but to go past one of them. He didn't want to be mugged and made a fool of again by Marty, yet looking at Steve sent shivers down his spine because of what he was told of him by Marty. Luckily, Bob remembered a quote his crazy old uncle (who's now in jail) used to tell him..... "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't."

With that thought Bob turned east and headed towards his old friend, Marty. When he got there, Bob took out his money and handed it over to Marty without much of a fuss, just thankful that he at least knew his money was going to Marty and not scary Steve.


The moral of the story is this..... If you come across someone who's going to vote Liberal, punch them in the face and take their money. You might as well get in on the action, as well.

Posted by: crazy uncle | 2005-11-29 9:47:38 AM


"based on static principles that hold public office holders to high standards."

Unless they are American Republicans.

Posted by: Justin | 2005-11-29 9:48:43 AM


"one day, risk the true horror of not being given a choice."

I guess this would be horrible for someone who really had the power to choose. For example, an Ontarian.

Everytime I have voted, as an Albertan, in a federal election the choices were made East of the Manitoba/Ontario border. I would describe my feelings about it as rage and frustration rather than horror.

"Vote. It's not a right. It's a responsibility."

You're correct here, it isn't much of a right when anyone with permanent resident's status can vote. I'm not sure it's the responsible thing to do, to take part in something that's rigged and give it a veneer of legitimacy.

Posted by: Speller | 2005-11-29 10:01:59 AM


Voting liberal in this pivotal election in the confederatin's history is an act of self abuse and treason.

Those who support crooks are crooks.

Posted by: WLMackenzie redux | 2005-11-29 10:06:25 AM


I agree WLMackenzie redux. That includes Liberal candidates as well as the NDP who have been propping up the LPC.

Posted by: Speller | 2005-11-29 10:23:45 AM


I'm a 27-year-old graduate student living in Alberta. For the last two federal elections, I voted because I felt it was my right and responsibility to do so.

Then I realized
A) My vote had no impact on who got into office.
B) My participation lent credibility to a system which didn't deserve it.

Much as I believe in freedom and democracy, I'm not voting in the next federal election. My participation would only offer the appearance of my faith in a system that doesn't have it. Like Speller said, it doesn't affect the outcome of the vote, it just makes it seem like we're willing to accept it.

I am, however, voting in the next Albertan election, for the party that seems to offer Alberta's best chance of leaving Canada.

Posted by: Tozetre | 2005-11-29 10:53:31 AM


Ha, ha, Justin, you're such a card.

Happily for us Americans, when our politicians screw up royally, if they've really done something wrong, they get convicted. And get real punishments. And, because we let our parties alternate having power, both Republicans and Democrats get to be corrupted. Of course, inter-party infighting in Congress since Watergate has also made ethics rules there ever more stringent. Not that most Americans expect high ethics from their politicians, we just expect them to keep the personal theft to a minimum.

Personally, if I was inclined to the Liberals, I'd vote NDP. How much worse could it be? And at least they're not the Liberals. I don't think Ontarians realize how ridiculous *another* Liberal minority or, worse, majority gov't will look to those, well, few outsiders who care.

Posted by: Meg Q | 2005-11-29 10:58:20 AM


I miss the Natural Law Party already.. Choices people, choices.. The things we just don't have..

Posted by: tee | 2005-11-29 11:07:24 AM


Why bother voting when all parties are bent on the oppression of whites thru massive immigration, quotas, and hate laws? And the bizzarest thing is that Conservatives imbibe the multi-culti Koolaid even when it leads to their own demise. Demographics is destiny and if Canada's immigration pattern continues, the Conservatives are doomed. Vismins don't vote Conservative.

Posted by: DJ | 2005-11-29 11:18:52 AM


The key here should be getting rid of the Liberals. If the Conservatives were to gain power, most likely it would be a minority. Conservatives need to pick a few issues that they can with the NDP on, and keep their confidence. I noticed that the Dippers haven't raised their voices over the tax cuts that the Libs have announced, could it be because they know that that money could be coming out of the scams the Liberals have going on, as opposed to cutting social programs? Then the Liberals will have a new leader, and hopefully laws will be in place to prevent the skimming of taxpayers dollars that has been going on for the past decade.

The key is to get rid of the Liberals. Think of how much better of a country we could be, without the joke of a corrupt goverment we currently have.

Posted by: ld | 2005-11-29 11:40:02 AM


What will happen is that Harper will win a minority. The CPC, the Bloc and the dippers will get together to enact real ethics laws and throw many Liberals in jail.

Then we wait for the Coco-puff to win the Quebec provincial election and remove them from Canada.

Problem solved.

Then there will never be another Liberal candidate again as they will have been completely irradicated (those that are not in jail.)

Then we will all live happily ever after in the wealth and prosperity in the land of liberty and (real) justice.

Or the Liberals will win and both Quebec AND Alberta will hit the exits.

Posted by: Warwick | 2005-11-29 12:17:54 PM


Comments, anyone?>>>>>


Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

OTTAWA (CP) - Conservative Leader Stephen Harper launched his campaign Tuesday by steering it straight into the electoral turbulence of gay marriage.
via cnews

Posted by: maz2 | 2005-11-29 12:44:29 PM


Peter Mackay, for instance, is a Progressive not a conservative. Progressive Conservatives only conserved socialist progress.

IF the CPC gets a look at the books and then makes the findings public the Libs will be very badly hurt politically. Big IF.

The CPC has a lot of 'former' Progressive Conservatives and all the political baggage that entails. I believe the Libs and PCs had a 'gentlemen's' agreement to keep the fiscal skeletons in the closet.

It wasn't the CPC or PCs who broke the Sponsorship(Adscam) Scandal.

Both the Liberals and the PCs pushed the 3rd party election gag legislation.


As an Alberta Nationalist, my worst case scenario is the CPC gaining enough seats to overcome an NDP/Liberal coaltion government, which is, de facto, what existed until the non-confidence vote.

That would delay the realization of Alberta nationalism.

I doubt Edmonton will reelect Liberals, but that would be fine with me. If not, they will probably elect two Dippers. The effect will be the same.

People who believe in the Canaduh myth would be wiser to be preaching up the CPC on Ontario NDP/Liberal blogs.

Ontarians are the ones who are making the choice, Wonder Woman.

If Canadians had a two party system like the Americans, the Liberals wouldn't be able to present themselves as the 'moderate center' with 'extremes' of the NDP on one side and the CPC on the other.

The maintainence of the NDP as a separate party is crucial to the Canadian socialist agenda.

The NDP act as a foil as well as a prop to the Liberals to further the socialist agenda.

Lester B. Pearson governed 5 years with an NDP backed Liberal minority. He wrought many major socialist changes in Canadian politics and society during his regime. Three future prime ministers were in Pearson's cabinet.(Trudeau, Chretien, Turner)

All three parties, NDP/Liberals/Bloc are socialists. In a pinch, they can form any combination to advance this socialist agenda, kinda, sorta, like a tag team match.

The CPC appears to stand alone, like a one legged man in an a$$ kicking contest.

I predict that the NDP and Liberals have hammered out an agreement, by which various cabinet posts most representative of their minor differences in core support, are divided up in a coalition government plan.

For example the NDP would get portfolios in Healthcare, Immigration, Multiculturalism, Environment, maybe even Energy.(ala PetroCan)

Both the NDP and Liberals have entered the election as separate parties with no announcement of this plan.

This plan will be implemented ONLY if the CPC takes more seats than the Liberals but fails to achieve a clear majority.

If the NDP/Liberal coalition is still in a minority position, but hold a balance of seats exceeding the CPC total, their joint socialist policies will be tailored to Bloc acceptance and the Leftist agenda will go forward.

Quebec is only a 'havenot' province by the measuring stick of transfer payment debits. Quebec is bribed by Ontario to maintain the status quo.

The NDP, with their undeserved reputation as a 'moral compass' and the 'Social Conscience of Canadian Politics' will act as a chaperone or guarantor of Liberal fiscal purity and their trilateral agreements with the Bloc will be seen as a model for Canadian cooperation for years to come.

Except, perhaps, in Alberta.

I'm not drinking the Koolaid in January.

Posted by: Speller | 2005-11-29 12:44:58 PM


Well I've certainly made my choice...and it certainly isn't to admit defeat, before it's done. I intend to give the Liberals a good fight. But Speller, if you'd rather just pick up your ball, and go home in a pout, more's the better. Leave the playground to the big kids, who aren't afraid to get a little bloody in defense of what they believe in. It's not people like me who've given the Liberals their hand-hold on this country - it's people like you, who would simply opt out of the game, because it's not going your way.
If you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain about what you get.

Posted by: Wonder Woman | 2005-11-29 1:18:51 PM


For that matter,

Speller says his vote never counts but I bet he votes conservative and I bet there is a conservative representing his riding.

I vote conservative and there is a Liberal representing my riding (for now.)

Who's vote counted?

Posted by: Warwick | 2005-11-29 1:28:25 PM


"But Speller, if you'd rather just pick up your ball, and go home in a pout, more's the better. Leave the playground to the big kids, who aren't afraid to get a little bloody in defense of what they believe in."

Just to be clear, you live in Ontario don't you Wonder Woman?

I am home. Here in Alberta. I'm not playing, little girl, and I'm not going to go ANYWHERE.

I want to kick the hoologans OUT. Then you'll see, "bloody in defense."

"If you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain about what you get."

Nice bit of Ontario Liberal logic you have there WW. Right up there with the Liberal meme that 'polite people don't discuss religion or politics at social gatherings'.

In a real democracy you might have a point. Canada is not a democracy.

Psuedo-democracy is the BEST defence against revolution and the creation of a true democracy.
How could common support for reform be raised if citizens think this is a democracy even if, in reality, whole regions didn't have a voice, eh, Wonder Woman?

"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."
Joseph Stalin

"Democracy is indispensable to socialism."
Vladimir Lenin


"A revolution is impossible without a revolutionary situation; furthermore, not every revolutionary situation leads to revolution."
Vladimir Lenin


Posted by: Speller | 2005-11-29 1:56:28 PM


Warwick, I am in Art Hanger's riding and even joined the Alliance to vote to defend his candidacy. I was a card carrying Reform member since 1991. Reform meant "Never again having to say you're Tory." It's true.

Now that Reform has become Tories again it's time for Alberta to join the family of nations.

Posted by: Speller | 2005-11-29 2:09:21 PM


I think the West should engage in an armed revolt. I'd throw my support into that! Storm the peace tower and burn it down!

Posted by: Andrew | 2005-11-29 2:09:38 PM


No need for armed revolt Andrew. Armed revolts rarely lead to real democracy, with justice and accountability.

This election is win-win for Alberta.

It's Ontario's to lose.

Posted by: Speller | 2005-11-29 2:18:16 PM


Real democracy doesn't exist anywhere. We need a liberatarian society where there is little government involvement.

Posted by: Andrew | 2005-11-29 2:22:02 PM


Pick me up on the way to Ottawa Andrew, I live in London, ON! I'll bring a guillotine and want to be the first to bring the blade down on some of those bastards!

BLUE REVOLUTION IS IMMINENT! WAKE UP ONTAXIO!!!

Posted by: metalguru | 2005-11-29 2:33:26 PM


Yes, real democracy doesn't exist anywhere, Andrew.

But there are examples like the US and Switzerland on one side, and the German Democratic Republic and USSR on the other.

Armed revolt usually achieves the later examples of 'democracy'.

I think I'd like to be a US style citizen instead of a SUBJECT of the Crown.

Posted by: Speller | 2005-11-29 2:34:02 PM


I have a differing of opinion with Speller on separation but on the point of revolution he is generally right with the glaring exception of the US Revolution (ironically a country he mentions himselfas being his model of democracy on which I would concur.)

Metalguru:

The Guillotine was the start of the Terror which was followed by the dictatorship of Napoleon.

Still interested?

Posted by: Warwick | 2005-11-29 2:40:05 PM


The US is why I used the term RARELY instead of never, Warwick of Ontario.

Posted by: Speller | 2005-11-29 2:52:41 PM


I'll be voting Conservative of course but like my fellow Albertans here, I am ultimately a Albertan Nationalist and will do everything in the future to help us separate from this country!

Posted by: Albertanator | 2005-11-29 3:48:45 PM


Just a brief aside to some of the people I admire on this thread.

In the US we do not have a "democracy," we have a "republic." We regard pure democracies as "mobocracies."

We prefer to elect politicians who are supposed to spend their time gaining expertise on subjects that citizens often do not have the time to do. Then we lobby those politicians (read: demand) to vote on the issues.

If they become crooks while in office, we send them to jail as you can see happening at this very instant with a powerful Republican Congressman. If they are not crooked, but fly in the face of their constituents' desires then we vote them out of office and replace them.

It's not a perfect system in every way, but it does seem to work pretty well.

Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 2005-11-29 4:27:41 PM


Too true Greg.

Your system has all the checks and balances ours lack - and your sense of nationhood includes self-respect.

Posted by: Warwick | 2005-11-29 4:32:16 PM


Thank you for the clarity, Greg. I greatly admire the United States of America.

"Too true Greg.
Your system has all the checks and balances ours lack - and your sense of nationhood includes self-respect." Amen, Warwick

The Peoples Republic of China, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, German Democratic Republic, Peoples Republic of Vietnam are/were republics too Greg?

Posted by: Speller | 2005-11-29 4:59:34 PM


The problem with the revolts that you spoke of Speller (China, USSR etc.) is that they weren't from the ground up. Rather than the real people taking over they were instructed by some leader and used as pawns to take over. The American revolution was different as it was more of a grassroots movement whereby the people (not the political leaders) got fed up and took over. I say we head on over to the hill and blop a few tank shells in the peace tower.

Posted by: Andrew | 2005-11-29 6:37:24 PM


I think the Reform Party was the right way to go. But we need a national party to advance that agenda. That is why it became the PC.

I do think we should be more like a republic. USA is not a bad model.

Posted by: Rémi houle | 2005-11-29 7:23:19 PM


Speller, I'm not sure if you are a genial curmudgeon, just like to debate, or are trying to keep us honest.

The United States is a capitalist country. The other countries on your list are socialist/communist countries, as well as being totalitarian states.

Surely there's no reason to belabor this.

Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 2005-11-29 9:15:05 PM


"It's not people like me who've given the Liberals their hand-hold on this country - it's people like you, who would simply opt out of the game, because it's not going your way.
If you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain about what you get."

I wouldn't describe the following as "opting out."

1. Live in Alberta.
2. Vote Reform/Alliance/whatever it happened to be that month, in the last two elections.
3. Riding goes to Alliance in the last two elections.
4. Talking Heads stop counting before the poll stations west of Manitoba check in, in the last two elections.

No. I- and my fellow Albertans- were _opted_out_ of the process. Continuing to participate is offering a semblance of validity to Canadian federal elections, and I'm not going to do that.

Posted by: Tozetre | 2005-11-29 10:21:56 PM


The main problem with Canada's system is that one party has been in power for over 80 of the last 100 years, and it refuses to go through the institutional changes it *has* to go through to stay healthy (which are long overdue). E.g. - in the U.S. the Democrats changed in the '20's, the Republicans changed in the '70's, the Democrats are in serious need of a reinvention now. Or in the U.K. - Tories have been through changes, latest one in early '70's ending with Thatcher election, Labour just *totally* reinvented itself under Blair (still sore feelings over that). These changes must be made over time as crucial issues and voting blocs change; if a party refuses to make them, they may remain huge and even in power, but they will become more sclerotic and ineffective with each year.

Voilá Canada.

After the Campbell gov't went down, the "Conservatives" (of all stripes) *had* to reinvent themselves - but a lot of good came out of that, it really helped the western part of the country figure out what they wanted and showed "upper Canada" that they weren't the be-all/end-all. The current federal Conservatives are a much stronger party because of all the horrible things everyone went through in the last 12 years (they just need to get provincial Tories to row the same way, wink, wink).

Of course, the NDP and the Bloc are both young, vigorous and well-defined parties so their day has not yet come . . . but it will.

My husband and I were talking about this last night (he grew up in the U.K., and I, as a student of Trollope's "Palliser" novels, read up on Parliament in the Victorian period). It seems minority gov'ts really come around when one or more parties are in decline and/or creation/regeneration, and there is a lot of confusion in the polity. Right now, in Canada, you have both, so a period of minority gov'ts might occur for a few more years. That's not necessarily a bad thing. And having your parliamentary system, or a party method of nominations, or anything based on the "Westminster" system, none of that is bad - but anything can become bad, if it is operated by people who have no respect for the traditions and rules governing that thing. This is what has happened in Canada over at least the last 12 years, especially as a Westminster system is so dependent on convention and tradition. Canada should keep her heritage, but reform her system. For (one) example, she would probably do better to vest a little power back to the queen in her person*, rather than keep all practical power in the hands of the PM. And maybe make the GG actually exercise those powers vested back, and have the queen (or king, as it were) actually choose the GG on her/his own (w/advice from the PM and Oppo Leader). That's one idea - maybe it's a good one or a bad one, I don't know, but it's an idea. Anyway, a Con/NDP or Con/Bloc minority would, I hope, bring about serious ethical and systemic reform. Everyone seems to agree on some basic reforms anyway, that could take up most of a turbulent short minority parliament if that's what you had.

*I may be an American, but I think if you've stuck it out with the Windsors/neé Saxe-Coburg-Gothans this long, you might as well keep 'em on your stamps and money for awhile yet.

Posted by: Meg Q | 2005-11-29 10:42:24 PM


Except that the GG is effectively appointed by the PM- Queen's approval is rubber-stamp- and the "reform" that the Tory party underwent to get Mulrouney in office was in fact easternization.

It's been a repeated sad fact of federal politics that westerners can't get elected. Our parties become palatable to Ontarians once they've been neutered and made "middle of the road," which is far, far left of where they started, in the west. Our leaders, if they come from the west, are demonized as baby-eating hick Bible thumpers, or perhaps as emotionless robots who have too much passion.

If the Alliance dumped Harper, pulled a Red Tory fat cat out of Toronto, and ran with the Red Book from the early 90's, they would be perfectly acceptable, and there would be a majority government very quickly. Again, the "reform" required to get a majority (i.e. popular support in Ontario) is the jettisoning of western values like social conservatism, a culture of serving the electorate, and fiscal responsibility in the face of demands for social spending.

Posted by: Tozetre | 2005-11-30 12:45:00 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.