The Shotgun Blog
« Cause and Effect | Main | Witness to Kazemi Murder Case is Executed »
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Rambling Rae
On the Editorial page of the National Post (Nov. 7), Liberal leadership candidate Bob Rae - formerly of the NDP, and once the Premier of Ontario for a mercifully brief period – warned us to “reject those who suggest there is a fatal flaw in the Canadian idea.”
Perhaps this warning is a little self-serving, rolling as it did along with a lot of other misleadingly glib observations off Bob’s own lips. For the problem is, the “fatal flaw” is Bob himself – along with all those other pretentious political puffballs with which so many political parties seem infested, who wake up every day with their strangely “Canadian idea” of “leadership” - a word they all fancy applies to their chosen role in Canadian life. But it merits a little scrutiny.
Bob’s editorial feels good. Like so many other politicians he has mastered the art, either of saying nothing at all in carefully selected phrases of non-commitment to anything except the nearest rhetorical escape route if questioned too closely, or of saying what is not in fact true, but presenting it as fact and history.
We are told that “Canada’s Constitution was, in 1867, an act (sic) of the British Parliament.” He then says “it took over a hundred years before it became truly ours [in 1982], with an entrenched Charter of Rights and its own amending formula.”
But this was precisely the point at which, for many Canadians, the Constitution became untruly ours. For in effect, on that date it left the hands of the Canadian people, and became Trudeau’s, and Bob’s (and all that benighted leftist ilk). Indeed, with these remarks, sly Bob fingered the real cleavages in this country.
First, we have a population cleavage, because millions of us old enough to remember can honestly say we grew up in a different place prior to 1982. From 1867 until then our legal and political system rested primarily on a venerable common-law tradition centuries old, the provinces more or less exercised their own precisely enumerated provincial powers (which have always been distinct from the federal powers), and we had a representative democratic parliament via which our will – captured in the laws we thought it wise to promulgate - was expressed by our representatives in the House of Commons. Once ratified, those laws became the highest law in the land.
But Trudeau’s (and Rae’s) beloved Charter changed all that. No Canadian since 1982 can now truly say the laws of the land express his or her will, or even the will of the Canadian people, simply because the Charter is now the Supreme law of Canada, and only unelected judges may decide what the words of the Charter mean. So the true and fundamental meaning of that change was and is - to hell with the will of the people. There are two practical reasons why this is true. First, because our elected representatives simply will no longer bother to propose a new law (no matter how good they, or we, think it would be for the people) which they know an ideological court will shoot down as soon as look at it. And secondly, all existing laws dragged before such courts now have their previously established meanings re-constituted, not according to what the judges honestly believe the people intended when they made those laws, or according to the force of case-law over the centuries, but according to what the judges personally believe the law ought to be. In other words, since 1982, at almost every turn, the opinion of judges is being substituted for the voice of the people.
Now I think it bizarre that prior to 1867 voices were raised in tumult and even many lives were lost in the clamour for “responsible government.” Canada’s settlers insisted on the right to make their own laws through their elected representatives, rather than have them handed down by the British parliament and courts. We finally got responsible government in 1867. But there is a good case that we surrendered it again in 1982, for at a single stroke of Trudeau’s pen we removed the right of the people to make the supreme law of the land and handed that right over to our own courts. I suppose that is better than handing it over to the British courts once again. But not much. Point being, we no longer have responsible government in the sense of having the right to express our will through unfettered representatives. Say what you may, they are fettered anew. And I would say this whether the courts were leftist or rightist, because the principle is dead wrong in itself, by itself, because it surrenders us to judicial oligarchy, by whatever stripe.
I write of these things only to say that like so many others who gleefully re-arranged Canada on that day in 1982, Bob is out there once again promoting himself and his leftist views. Note how he closes: “Leadership is about building confidence through success in addressing the practical needs of Canadians. Above all, we need to address the real imperatives of our era. These include acting on climate change, building a prosperous economy, providing jobs for Canadians, maintaining an independent and thoughtful foreign policy, ensuring a competitive tax regime, reducing child poverty, supporting learning.”
Please forgive my cynicism. But it is surely outdone by Bob’s own. So allow me to recast his remarks by way of offering an alternative vision. “Leadership” is about stopping the growth of meddlesome, over-regulating government at all three levels, so that the people regain the confidence that comes from running their own lives, families, and livelihoods responsibly. It is about recognizing that no one really knows anything about the reasons for climate change. We don’t even have the slightest idea whether or not it is actually changing, and if so, why? So we should keep the planet as clean as we can personally, locally, and nationally, without using supposed climate change as a cover for more taxation, more socialism and more regulation. As for “building an economy”? Aside from the prevention of force and fraud and the enforcement of contracts and the law, we should get out of the way of the people when it comes to commercial affairs and entrepreneurship. And we should also stop giving businesses money that is taken from the hands of so many ordinary citizens who can ill afford to part with it. Governments cannot “build” economies. They can only create an appropriate framework for them. As for creating jobs? We know only too well that every job government “creates” to make itself look good costs more to other taxpayers than the job itself ever pays back to the country. In this sense, so-called “job creation” is just another form of vote-buying welfare. Most of all, we should burn as much government red tape as possible so that vital and imaginative young Canadians will think about staying in Canada to work, invent, and invest, instead of heading south after we spend $100,000 educating them. And so-called “foreign policy”? Canada is a very small country with what is perhaps a disproportionate political clout because it is perceived by others as decent. But we need to stop congratulating ourselves with our pretended moral superiority and also stop spending untold millions on useless, mostly leftist foreign causes, because we cannot afford it, and anyway, in the long run, the countries we assist simply have to learn to fend for themselves instead of waiting for handouts. To a great extent, international “aid” is a crutch to national development. When it comes to our “tax regime,” child poverty, and learning? We should take the position that the least tax is the best tax, and leave as much of the people’s income in their own hands as possible so they can steer their own lives. Also, it is a myth that corporations pay taxes. They do, of course. But all corporate taxes are just passed on to consumers in the price of products. So in that sense, only consumers pay taxes. True child poverty is very rare, because most parents would die before letting their children starve or live in want. So the first and best way to deal with poverty of any kind is to strengthen the roots of the traditional family by encouraging marriage over common-law, by chasing down dead-beat dads who don’t support their own wives and kids, and by tax cuts and incentives to families to look after their own elderly parents. Finally, there is learning. Our universities are still good, and some of their departments even great. But modern campuses have too few serious students, and too many who are there mostly for a tax-funded holiday from reality, and partying (see the Post, same day: “Business Students: Debauchery Lesson” page A3). Everyone loves a good party. But funding education for rich kids, or for the growing youth drug and party crowd, or as a means of vote-buying or cozying to corporate research at the taxpayers expense, or tolerating the Gentleman’s B grading system and handing out B.A. degrees to all comers regardless of genuine performance, or giving deadbeat professors tenure? Well, we can “support learning” by taking a clean broom to the whole business.
Enough for today.
(Cross-posted at www.williamgairdner.com)
Posted by williamgairdner on November 11, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8342e15d453ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rambling Rae:
Comments
Canada is a joke and all things show it; I thought so once but now I know it
Posted by: bk | 2006-11-12 2:36:44 AM
I'm surprised by the fact Bob Rae is one of the leading candidates for the Liberals. If he becomes leader, that means the Liberals would have skipped all the way from its previous 1960s leadership to the 1980s. har de har.
Posted by: rockyt | 2006-11-12 8:09:11 AM
"...mercifully brief period..."? Are you kidding? Did you live in Ontario while this a--hole governed? He was the worst Premier in Ontario history.
Posted by: mike s | 2006-11-12 9:14:59 AM
First bob, then william now karol... this rambling seems to be catching.
Posted by: Nbob | 2006-11-12 9:41:58 AM
Who's rambling Nbob? 'Pot calling the kettle black...hmmm?
I don't hear William Gairdner claiming that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) is the reason for all of Canadians' woes, but he's right on when he says that it's taken us further from "responsible government" as first conceived of in Canada back in the early 1800s.
As one of the myriad descendents of Robert Baldwin (they had very large families back then), I rather take exception to what the Liberals have turned our country into: Instead of a country where hard-working, law-abiding, tradition-keeping citizens have a major say in how our country is run, with little government interference in our lives, we now have a country where if you can prove your victim bona fides, you'll get cash for life, as well as tea and sympathy, from all but four of our political parties--the Dippers perhaps being the worst, but they're never going to form a government.
The Librano$, on the other hand, are offering us the worst of everything: their socialist, Charter-friendly, meaning Court-/judiciary-laden, laws and commissions and, the icing on the cake, former Dipper Premier Bob Rae as PM.
WOW!! A socialist bonanza for the Canadian voter! Two for the price of one: Librano ineptitude, leading to fewer genuine freedoms for Canadians, plus Dipper ineptitude in nothing-has-really-changed-in-my-way-of-thinking leader Bob Rae.
Add to that toxic mix, Bob's Uncle Mo (aka Maurice Strong, one-world government cheerleader, now living in China) and Paul Desmarais' Power Corps, the puppet master behind the Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien, and Martin governments, and it looks like Canadians are really being taken for a ride.
Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-11-12 10:25:05 AM
Ahhh...the good ole LPC mantra....
Canadian values!
It says it all,yet says nothing!
French/English,east/west,anti-assimilation(multi-culturalism)and rabid right/left partisanship.
If we are to be honest with ourselves,this country is highly fractured and has no future as it is currently structured.The only question left to me is which of these 'divisive values' will be the first cause of this once great nation to dissolve?
batb,
Where I cannot disagree with most of your post,I find blaming EVERYTHING on the left as disengenuous...
After all,Canadian conservatives did not leave the country for the past few decades and return to find it in this state.We sat on our collective asses and allowed this to happen.
And,as bewildering as it may be to us,this weak-kneed society is exactly what many Canadians want.
The question is..."What are we prepared to do about it?"
As much as I have found Harper to be a breath of fresh air,he is not the solution...at least not as long as so many Canadians oppose him and will not allow him to make substantive changes.
If the Liberanos had not been caught with their upper torso in the cookie jar,most Canadians would still endorse,with the MSM cheering them on,their feel good,'treading-water'style of government....Sad,but polls consistently demonstrate it to be true.
Remember...the Canadian values the LPC love to trumpet are NEVER defined,except of course to point out ALL consevatives as somehow unCanadian.Far too many or our fellow Canadians seem to accept that message as A-OK.
Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2006-11-12 1:16:48 PM
No one knows anything about climate change? We don't have the slightest idea whether its changing or not? How can any of what you wrote be taken seriously when you proved your outright ignorance with those two statements?
Personally, I think we should stop using boats because its dangerous. No one knows anything about mapping and we don't have the slightest idea whether the earth is round or not.
Gimme a break. No wonder the western standard is a joke, hire some real journalists with brains. Oh, but if you did that, you wouldn't be an ultra-right wing paper anymore.
Posted by: Iggy for PM | 2006-11-12 1:56:50 PM
Trudeau was the 'front' and Mo Strong was the architect of the 'plan' (Communist game plan Charter) to demoralize and control the lives of all independent citizens of Canada. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative government are confronting a stupid agenda driven msm and a Justice system that is corrupt and biased to create chaos and frustration for all honest, taxpaying, liberty loving citizens.
It should come as no surprise to anyone of us who took the time to look at the package we got when the people of Canada elected Trudeah. Trudeau was a spoiled millionaires kiddie, he was not a soldier or a farmer, he never had to worry about money but he did not earn the $$ himself. He was perceived to be a 'rebel - like James Dean - he was more like James Dean, the eternal 'boy' than the Canadian people knew; Trudeau was a brainwashed, hating, envy driven, left wing elitist 'peter Pan's wanted to rule better men than he knew himself to be.
Trudeau felt very inadequate among independent landowners and businessmen who worked for a living and achieved success on their own; moreover, he felt very small when he was stacked up beside war veterans who bristled with the self confidence that men who have fought and won a war wear like a second skin.
Trudeau was too cowardly to fight ( he was a member of the age group who went to WWII and came home to cheering crowds); Trudeau did not fight for the right side , instead he, like Taliban Jack, decided to plot against the soldiers and undermine the confidence they had earned - Trudeau supported left wing radicals from the safety of a very Conservative thinking country (and his daddy's big bank account). He allied himself with the likes of Moe Tse Tung and Castro and during the war he had a fling with the Hitler sponsored Brown-shirts. The puny stature of the mini man only added to the 'reason' for his intense hate for valiant, honest, men.
The envy and hate helps explain his 'deer in the headlights' demeanor of fear and his verbal vitriol for Hon. Mr. Eric Nielson, the leader of the opposition in the early 1980s. Eric shredded Trudeau in the House of Commons every day; Eric was a fighter pilot in WWII and a very intelligent lawyer - he grew up in N. Canada; their was no silver spoon in Eric's mouth when he was born - he earned every cent he spent.
The Conservatives, in their own stupidity at the time, choose to stab Eric in the back - Sinclair Stephens Affair - (I suspect it could have been because a lot of the Conservative M.P. s had sat at home during the war and they, too, resented Eric Nielson for his war record and his brilliance). The Conservatives nominated a "Progressive" loser (Joe Clark) to fight the vitriol-lipped Trudeau in the election that sealed Canada's fate for the last 30 years. If the Conservatives had nominated Eric Nielson to fight Trudeau he would have shredded that little pimple. We would have 'stayed the course' as a powerful, prosperous, nation -proud of our accomplishments, proud of our independent, freedom loving people, proud of our military might.
My Mom, who grew up on the prairies during the Dirty Thirties and joined the RAF to help fight Hitler, said that the war had changed how her generation perceived the pioneer generation. Mom said that a lot of women became independent during the war (herself included) and the homecoming soldiers were not really interested in 'women's affairs'. She said Trudeau appealed to these women because he seemed so much like them. Trudeau was resentful of the adventures of the brave young men men who had left dried up dirt farms as poor farm boys in 1939 and came back as tough, disciplined, self confident men in 1945. The soldiers of WWII had options and they had stories - they went to university and became a fierce force in Canada after 1945 - the men and women who stayed home outnumbered them though - and this latter crowd were determined to 'humble' these self confident young heroes - so they elected Trudeau to 'take them down a notch'.
Now we have the likes of Ray, Graham, the old hippy crowd, the Yuppies....who are shaking in their peter pan booties at the thought of battle hardened young soldiers from Afghanistan coming home and showing them up. I don't think that our returning soldiers will crumble when they see the silly -servant 'smoke police' swarming them when they light up a cigarette. They will not be so easy to control as the 'peace and love', 'sensitive', 'aware' 'Me, me' crowd. The Liberano$/Dipper crowd want these soldiers back here as soon as possible; they might derail the victimization, powerless, sheep like minions that have dominated the politics of Canada since the fateful day that fools elected the cowardly 'rebel', PET.
This time we have a Prime Minister who is not gender challenged by soldiers; he supports them! The Prime Minister of Canada, Hon. Mr. Stephen Harper, will not be a M. King or a Trudeah who were an embarrassment to the soldiers, these soldiers have an Allie not a detractor as their Chief. It is a fine time for Canadians, our nation and our soldiers. If only Canadians had had enough brain power to give the Conservatives a majority, our nation could have been well on it's way to unraveling the 'fur ball' (Liberano/Dippers)coughed up by Trudeau in his egregious uncharter of Rights and Freedoms, that has undermined the Rights and Freedom of people of this nation for years.
Posted by: jema54j | 2006-11-12 1:59:26 PM
How can you compare WWII soldiers to current ones? In WWII, we were fighting a murderous, imperialistic, racist, facist regime, now, we are defending a murderous, imperialistic, racist, facist regime.
Those soldiers in WWII were attempting to push back the invaders, now we are the invaders.
They returned from WWII as men, knowing they defended our country and saved the planet in time. These ones will return as little children, knowing they endangered our country and made the world more dangerous in time.
I feel bad for our dying soldiers' families, but I won't shed a tear for them. I'm saving my tears for the four year old Afghani boy laying in the hospital with one leg because the other one got blown off by a bomb set off by a Canadian soldier. You people who disregard this suffering as casualities of war are spoiled, ignorant brats. Its much easier to blabber on about how this war is necessary when you're sitting in your cozy living room. It was people like you that made the Charter necessary. To protect the innocent and oppressed from the arrogance and unfeelingness of you brats. Its not elementary school anymore kids, its the real world.
Posted by: Iggy for PM | 2006-11-12 2:16:20 PM
Since climate change is so well understood, then perhaps Iggy for PM/lefty_99 has a link (because this is actually off topic) to a page that explains why the past 10,000 years have been quite consistantly warm?
It seems like William has found part of the reason for the rampant voter apathy and lack of desire to vote among the many. Voter turnout has dropped consistantly from 75.3% in 1988 to 60.5% in 2004 according to the http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/electoral/voter-turnout/backgrounder.html page.
John M Reynolds
Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2006-11-12 2:24:38 PM
"I'm saving my tears for the four year old Afghani boy laying in the hospital with one leg because the other one got blown off by a bomb set off by a Canadian soldier."
How many tears have you shed for the innocent unborn babies aborted in the name of "a woman's right" you and your ilk support you putrid flake?
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-11-12 2:36:06 PM
I think anyone with a moniker of "Iggy for PM" should not go around questioning the intelligence of others. See where I'm going with this?
First off. Canadian soldiers do not, and have never even in other wars, target children with attacks. Canadian soldiers do not lay in wait and blow up kids like terrorists. What world do you live in.
Secondly. The Charter of Rights, and our Constitution is a waste of time and paper. Made up by a bunch of elitist snobs, and others who think they know better than the rest of us. If we want a real Charter, let the average Canadian have a say.
Thirdly. While I agree that we should protect the environment, there is absoultely no need to follow Kyoto. Just a transfer of hard working Canadian dollars to the third world. Funny, since we signed the accord, our emissions have gone up 24%. Interestingly, the US didn't sign on, and theirs went down, what was it now, 6-10% according to the stats I've seen.
Fourthly. The real world. Never met a Liberal/Lefty/NDPer who knows what the real world is. And that is from a "never been spoiled brat".
Posted by: Leaf | 2006-11-12 2:52:09 PM
Can you be for real Sudbury? I won't send you a link because you'll dispute it anyway. There's nothing a new that I can say that hasn't been said and agreed upon by 95% of scientists. You know, they down even call it "global warming skeptics anymore", they call them "global warming deniers." A skeptic is one you does not agree with a theory, a denier is one who will not accept truth.
Blue, you're living proof of why abortion should be legal. You offer nothing of intelligence to this board, and I suspect you offer nothing to society in general.
Posted by: Iggy for PM | 2006-11-12 2:58:31 PM
First off, not targeting children doesn't mean that we're still not killing them. ALthough I see your point, so I'll lower the charges to murder 2.
Secondly, the average person does have a say as the average Canadian wants the Charter.
Thirdly, there is a need to follow Kyoto as it is an international agreement and recognition of global warming. The purchase of credits was not included to assist poor nations, but to allow the rich nations to cheat on their emissions control. PS, you can thank Alberta and the tar sands for the increased emissions.
Fourthly, you never met a lefty who knows what the real world is because we are living in it. You only recognise "your" world, that is not the real world.
Posted by: Iggy for PM | 2006-11-12 3:03:54 PM
Hey, everyone: TROLL ALERT.
Iggy for PM: Who? 'Never heard of him.
Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-11-12 3:26:58 PM
You may not know who I am, but I'll tell you who Iggy is. He's the guy that you'll see on tv in the spring, on a podium in front of a cheering audience whilst the ticker will say "CTV projects a Liberal majority victory".
Posted by: Iggy for PM | 2006-11-12 3:33:23 PM
Iggy said,
"You may not know who I am, but I'll tell you who Iggy is. He's the guy that you'll see on tv in the spring, on a podium in front of a cheering audience whilst the ticker will say "CTV projects a Liberal majority victory".
Do you mean this Iggy?
"I supported war as the least bad of the available options. Containment -- keeping Saddam Hussein in a box -- might have made war unnecessary, but the box had sprung a series of leaks. Hussein was evading sanctions, getting rich through illegal oil sales and, so I thought at the time, beginning to reconstitute the weapons programs that had been destroyed by United Nations inspectors. If he were acquiring weapons, he could be deterred from using them himself, but he might be able to transfer lethal technologies to undeterrable suicide bombers. Such a possibility might have been remote, but after 9/11 it seemed unwise to trifle with it. Still, I thought, force had to be a last resort. If Hussein had complied with the inspectors, I would not have supported an invasion, but the evidence, at least till March 2003, was that he was playing the same old games. Getting Hussein to stop these games depended on a credible threat of force, and the French, Russians and Chinese weren't ready to authorize military options. So that left disarmament through regime change. Where I live -- in liberal Massachusetts -- this was not a popular view. "
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-12 3:44:32 PM
You're the last person who should be critisizing people for supporting the Iraq war. Just because he was lied to, like the rest of the world did, does not mean he is unfit. And just because he personally supported it, it does not mean he would have taken us there. Stephen Harper, on the other hand, has admitted many times that he would taken us to Iraq. Also, I know its difficult for you to understand, but there were other reason Mr. Ignatieff supported that war. Read one of his books, if you can read past a grade 4 level.
Posted by: Iggy for PM | 2006-11-12 3:56:42 PM
Why do you say such silly things Iggy for PM? The people here at Western Standard actually know some history. Do you think that you can get away with that rant about Afganistan being 'invaded' by Canada?
Afganistan was invaded by the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union pulled out of Afganistan the Taliban tried to take over. Wee Willy Clinton (and the rest of the free world) left the people of Afganistan on their own to fight the terrible agenda of the Taliban. We abandoned the Northern Alliance at the very time that a little help would have stopped the Taliban.
The free world at that time was being administered by Liberal leaning politicians.
You are a nasty little person Iggy for P. M. lacking in education and compassion; also, you are rather obviously a 'stay at home' somebody because your perception of the world is very limited.
Posted by: jema54j | 2006-11-12 3:59:42 PM
H2O, I didn't realize that Canada had so much french blood running through its veins. But then the PQ federal representatives are a plenty. Being from the west, Saddam got what he deserved.
To those nations which supported the USA position I say; "Jolly Good".
Posted by: Frico | 2006-11-12 4:08:04 PM
invasion: infringement by intrusion
I don't recall us being invited to haul our military over there.
You need the history lesson. The Taleban were funded and supported by the US government to fight the Soviets, as was Osama bin Ladan, at one point.
Don't ever say I lack compassion. It is you who is supporting the murder of scores of innocent Afghan civilians and 650,000 innocent Iraqis, whilst thousands in the Sudan are dying, being raped, and being displaced. Nevermind the millions of Africans dying so you can drive your car.
ALso, another lapse in your judgement, I'm not a "stay at home". I've travelled the world extensively, and not in five star hotels. I've seen poverty in Angola, the Philippines, Cambodia, South Africa, and Ghana. I've seen nations afflicted by civil war, US domination, and bad government. It is these experiences that have led me to my beliefs, and those beliefs are of life, freedom, and equality. I know those words are new to you, but you may want to give them a try.
Posted by: Iggy for PM | 2006-11-12 4:09:14 PM
"The Taleban were funded and supported by the US government to fight the Soviets, as was Osama bin Ladan, at one point."
Posted by: Iggy for PM | 12-Nov-06 4:09:14 PM
You commies NEVER tire of telling and retelling the above lie, do you?
The Taliban originated around 1993-1994. Farhatullah Babar struck a deal with exiled Afghan communist general Shahnawaz Tanai to break the chaos that had engulfed Afghanistan with the fall of its communist government of Mohammad Najibullah; ironically, as a result of Pakistan's sponsorhip of Tanai's failed coup to gain control of the collapsing communist regime.
From>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
The Soviet war in Afghanistan took place between December 25, 1979 and the last Soviet troops left on February 15, 1989.
From>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan
The Taliban didn't even form until nerely FOUR years after the Soviet/Afghan War and didn't take power in Afghanistan until 1996 a full 7(SEVEN) years later!
Posted by: Speller | 2006-11-12 4:47:16 PM
Iggy
"You're the last person who should be critisizing people for supporting the Iraq war. "
I merely asked if it was the same Iggy. I made no criticism.
So would your answer simply be "Yes, I support the same Iggy who supported going to war against Iraq."
I hope I have kept that as simple as my grade 4 reading level permits.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-12 5:05:44 PM
I don't think this thread should become a fight between people whatever their leaning.
We live in a fallen world. The best war we should wage is the war for conquering the heart of men. And this is done by spreading the Word.
Jesus said without me you can do nothing.
Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2006-11-12 5:08:10 PM
IFPM
Yeah, sure. Every Canadian soldier in Afghanistan goes out on a mission saying I'm going to kill an Afghani kid. You'll lower the charge to murder 2. What friggin planet do you live on? Lovely, sure would love to have you in power. Not to mention everyone in the military would have to watch themselves with a back stabbing guy like you around. Nothing better than hanging people out to dry if they happen to accidentallly make a mistake.
If Canadians think the current charter is what is good for Canada, lets have a referendum on it. Sorry, only Lieberals, NDP, and more left of the two like the charter. Keep parroting the Liberal propaganda.
Well, maybe Alberta is a problem with regards to emissions. Mind you, I didn't see the Liberals returning all that tax money collected from ALberta due to the oilsands. Can't have it both ways. Wouldn't take long for Quebec to start squawking about the lack of equalization money
My world is the real world there Iggy. I go to work everyday, pay my mortgage and bills, give up my hard earn taxes, raise the kids, look after the wife, etc, etc. The last thing I want is a world here in Canada like the previous 13 years of rule before the Conservatives. You know that world. Where the rights of murderers, pedophiles, terrorists, illegals come first. Where we have a military that couldn't defend PEI, where members of the government in power use the theft of taxpayers hard earned money to launder it for the use in election campaigns. Where billions have been wasted on such things as the gun control, Kyoto, multiculturalism, bilinguilism, and a host of other isms, etc, etc. I could go on. Sorry Iggy. I've put up with your types out look for to long, and I have no desire to do again in the future.
Interesting outlook from an Ontarion, eh?
Posted by: Leaf | 2006-11-12 6:00:17 PM
Yes, karolak, you'er the best sort for keeping us on topic, you old thread spammer you.
Perhaps because B-Rae is a one-time Ontario Premier you might want to send him an irrelevant 3 meter long healthcare missive with all of the attendant CCs, just to impress the newbies?
;->
Posted by: Speller | 2006-11-12 7:01:46 PM
I was wondering why anyone would want a hockey player for PM and then it finally dawned on me that you must mean Michael Ignatief. Iggy plays for the Flames and is one of the best players in the league. That other guy? Seems to be off his game.
Posted by: Lori | 2006-11-12 7:10:10 PM
Lori,
Not to mention off his rocker...
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-11-12 7:19:36 PM
Iggy you uncompassionate stooge, read Dr. Kernberg's book, against all odds you might learn something.
Posted by: Ziggy | 2006-11-12 8:25:22 PM
Bob Rae for Dear Leader of the Liberal Party of Toronto!
Rae has achieved a 'Zen state' of incompetence, the Liberals deserve him.
Posted by: Philanthropist | 2006-11-12 8:51:07 PM
Watching television turns your brains to cheese, karolak. Writng off topic letters over and over to people who never read them, in a place where the intended recipients are likley to never see them, is complex obsessive-compulsive disorder for you and boring for us.
B-Rae, like you, is shallow dish but at least he pretends to serve more than his own ends.
Rae can save me all he wants if he becomes LPC leader.
Welcome, Ontario Grits. Choose B-Rae and make my day.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-11-12 9:53:30 PM
The trouble with keeping this on topic is that the original post touches on so many topics; however, the more people like Iggy for PM/Lefty_99 wail, the better. He only proves William right. He displays the same ideas that our supreme court has. Iggy's lack of reason in light of the evidence against his stance is based on pure emotion. I suspect that Iggy is pro-kyoto because Iggy seems to consider it the government's responsibility to fix the ills of the world. Sadly, that individuals solve problems much better than governments ever can is lost on people like Iggy.
John M Reynolds
Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2006-11-12 10:21:53 PM
Isn't it comforting to have the Liberals and the Dippers so tuned in to the population they know exactly what we want and what we don't want.
It's "Canadians want bla bla, bla", "Canadians don't want bla bla bla". In reality they're full of the old excrement and full of themselves.
It really is difficult to even guess the outcome of the Liberal leadership. If it goes as per the usual coronation route, it'll have to be Iggy in the end. They coaxed him back to the Country to be their saviour so they'll have give him the reward in the end.
If the Liberals were smart they'd choose Dion to get them back on track in the next decade.
Problem with the Lieberals is desperation coupled with impatience and that may lead them to screw up royally in their choice for leader.
It may not even make for good theatre.
Posted by: Liz J | 2006-11-13 11:36:40 AM
Liz,
It bears pointing out yet again they are not to be taken lightly. I believe KK is correct in thinking there is movement to try and merge the left, a sign they take Harper seriously.
If that happens the ingrained leftist ideology born and bred into an increasing number of Canadians (particularly central and eastern Canada) could bring them back to power, almost indefinitely.
As has been proven by the polls, leadership means little to the left. Even without one they are close to, or leading. It is all about power and that is all that matters to them. I mean seriously, look the sorry excuses for leaders they have given us in the past.
If their much hated George Bush came up here, smiled and put on a Liberal cap, (much like Ignatieff has, he in fact supported the Iraq war) told them he was now a Lib I'm sure they would vote for him just to see the red machine back in power.
They are political whores, and unfortunately there are far to many Canadians looking for a little action.
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-11-13 12:36:59 PM
deepblue:
Truth is nothing matters to Liberals but power,anything goes, they'd trample their Grannies for power. It's all about winning. Never mind principles, morals or what's in the platform,it's the flash and dash snake oil salesman pitch delivered to the what's-in-it-for-me ignorant masses who vote for them.
It's true also that Ontario and much of the East are unable to wean themselves off the Liberals for that very reason, what will "I" lose?
One would have to be pretty low on scruples to vote for that Party. It hasn't yet had the purge it needs. We know, however,that doesn't matter to far too many.
As for polls, it appears there are some who would even vote for a Headless Horseman carrying the Liberal banner.
Posted by: Liz J | 2006-11-13 1:13:48 PM
deepblue:
A merge of the Canadian left would indeed be trouble for the right because of the leftist bias in Canada that you mention. However, there are two other points to consider.
The first is that a merger of the left would be an admission of the strength of the new Conservative party. The right has a distinct disadvantage - it has to get its mandate from sound policies and honest government. The support base of the right does not expect its party to be perfect; however it will forgive a lot less whereas the left base simply ignores wrongs by its parties. A more formidable political foe in the Harper Conservatives will ensure the left will not be as flippant about policy as it might if the right were weaker and so its policies would be kept more in check by an "opposition in waiting".
The second point is that I am not sure that it is yet a given. As you and Liz mentioned, it is more about power than anything else for the left. If the Liberals feel they can regain a majority without the NDP then they will give nothing to the NDP, and certainly not the power that would come from a merge of the two parties, even if that merger is the informal one that karol k. suggests.
I think a merger of the left would effectively neutralize the NDP and leave the Liberals where they are in terms of policy (while helping in popularity) in the short term. Over the long term the Liberal party might swing closer to the Conservatives in a two party system because the Liberals often repackage policies from their competition.
Therefore, I think a merger of the left would certainly keep Canadian politics leftist (Liberals in power) in the short term, but I think it would also cause the Liberals to move rightward over the long term, say, over twenty years. This analysis of mine assumes the Conservatives stay principled on policy over that same term (not necessarily a given).
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2006-11-13 1:20:37 PM
Nothing exemplifies the Liberal lust for power more than Chretien's response to Peter Mansbridge's question, "What was your biggest accomplishment as Prime Minister of Canada?", to which Chretien replied, "Three majority governments." Canada is just a gameboard to these freaks.
Posted by: johndoe124 | 2006-11-13 1:25:50 PM
johndoe124, though there was very little to like about Chretien's arrogance, like Mulroney before him (another arrogant s.o.b.) there is truth to what he is saying. I doubt you will see another majority government in this country in your lifetime. The Conservative Patry is fully embedded in western Canada but will never get enough seats in the east and major cities for a majority. Likewise for the Liberals. The Bloc will rule Quebec.
So in the future, the majority governments of Chretien and Mulroney will look might impressive.
Posted by: John Leningrad | 2006-11-13 1:33:41 PM
John L.
Although many of us on the right wonder why the rest "do not get it", I think your post is a very accurate analysis of the status quo and the forseeable future (until that status quo changes). Thanks for that post.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2006-11-13 1:38:13 PM
Iggy,
"How can you compare WWII soldiers to current ones? In WWII, we were fighting a murderous, imperialistic, racist, facist regime, now, we are defending a murderous, imperialistic, racist, facist regime.
Those soldiers in WWII were attempting to push back the invaders, now we are the invaders."
Cool. Canada joins the big leagues. We're an imperial power now.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-13 5:25:03 PM
trudeau was a gutless coward, who always put on an image of being against the establishment, and yet he used his family oil money to buy his way out of active service while his countrymen went to war over important principles. I cant believe that the liberals are so desperate that they would turn over the country to a failed ndp premier who has to have been the worst premier in cdn history. what a sick joke
Posted by: john a. | 2006-11-13 6:36:28 PM
Brent, you raise a valid point and I like the way you put it ("do not get it" as opposed to calling people not on the right, names). The Liberals do not deserve to be in power, and may not deserve to be in the forseeable future.
But to answer your question: many lifelong Liberals like myself voted for the Conservatives in the last election partly as a protest vote against the Liberals (the Conservatives didn't stand a chance winning in my Toronto riding) but also because Harper APPEARED to have moderated a bit. Unfortunately, he has turned out to be what centrist voters have feared: a Bush-lite neo-con with no concept of a fair foreign policy and disdain for the environment. As long as Harper is the leader of the Conservatives, I'm sorry to say many more us potential swing voters will still "not get it". Get a western-based, fiscally conservative, socially moderate leader, and you may very well see a Conservative majority. Continue along with a socially out-of-date leader who sees the world in black and white without any knowledge of history (particularly in the Middle East) and you will have a minority or nothing at all.
Posted by: John Leningrad | 2006-11-13 6:37:28 PM
its always the young men and women in our poor military that ends up getting blamed by the leftists and government tit suckers for the worlds ills. our people do not leave bombs laying around to maim children. our young people give out candies and get killed for it. our troops are highly trained and are more interested in helping the locals than the un crooks who siphon off the funds to there own families. tell the families from newfoundland to bc that there kids are killers as they try to get over the loss of there loved ones. you may not shed a tear but many cdns will.
Posted by: john a. | 2006-11-13 6:58:41 PM
"Continue along with a socially out-of-date leader who sees the world in black and white without any knowledge of history (particularly in the Middle East) and you will have a minority or nothing at all."
Your kidding right? Only in a country that is so far left as to be disturbing could someone as moderate as Harper be considered "out of date" or "short on history".
Trudeau's legacy is unbelievable to witness in your generation. Your blindness to reason and facts is shocking, as well as depressing.
http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2000/10/trudeau_canadas.php
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-11-13 10:06:02 PM
'Caught Rambling Rae last night on Mike Fluffy Live (Jane Taber--c'mon CTV--is still at the helm). What a pompous, smug, I've got Power Corps' $$$$ behind me, sleaze bag.
The guy will change hats, and commensurate political ideologies, at the drop of...well...a hat. There he was pontificating about everything that is wrong with the NDP, for G*d's sake.
Unfortunately (or could it work in PMSH's favour?), it looks like the wind's at his back and that Iggy is going down the drain. Stephane Dion doesn't have Paul Desmarais' backing, so what are his chances of snagging the Liberal leadership (sic)?
If Canadians give Rae the prime ministership, then Canada no longer is a country to take seriously--and I want OUT!
Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-11-14 6:04:31 AM
deepblue, Harper showed his lack of history by acting as if the whole Middle East conflict started with Hezbollah's shelling of northern Israel this past summer, and the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier in Gaza.
No mention of settlement expansions, the security wall through Palestinian territory, the shellnig of Gaza beaches, etc. In fact, we haven't heard anything from him or McKay about Israel's admitted erroneous shelling of civilians on the weekend (about 20 dead). Had the same happened to Jewish civilians, Harper would have showed up at a dinner or rally going on about HIS support for Israel. He's a total idiot.
Posted by: John Leningrad | 2006-11-14 6:39:25 AM
"deepblue, Harper showed his lack of history by acting as if the whole Middle East conflict started with Hezbollah's shelling of northern Israel this past summer, and the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier in Gaza.
No mention of settlement expansions, the security wall through Palestinian territory, the shellnig of Gaza beaches, etc. In fact, we haven't heard anything from him or McKay about Israel's admitted erroneous shelling of civilians on the weekend (about 20 dead). Had the same happened to Jewish civilians, Harper would have showed up at a dinner or rally going on about HIS support for Israel. He's a total idiot."
Quite frankly sir, you are the idiot, but then that is not a surprise is it? Supporting the only democratic state in the ME under constant terrorist threat could never be considered stupid by any clear thinking person. Only Trudeau's/Plato's children could be so ignorant of the facts and history.
Tell me, now that the ME terrorists are rubbing their hands in glee over the US election results and the Syrians are openly talking about reoccupying Lebanon, so they can terrorize not only the Lebanese people, but Israel, will you condemn them or do you only harbor your immature, misguided hatred for the Jews?
Or can we expect the same childish drivel from you when Israel is forced to defend herself against them as well?
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-11-14 8:04:15 AM
By the way, note that the Israelis apologized for the missile strike going astray. When was the last time Hezbollah apologized for killing a Jew?
Again, moral relativism from another safe Canadian untouched by terror. Give your head a shake.
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-11-14 8:11:16 AM
Ah, the old "moral relativism" busslshit - the same one that decries 3000 people dying on 9-11 but authorizes the US to kills tens of thousands elsewhere.
For the record, I FULLY support Israel's right to defend herself, to be armed by the Americans and to have a security wall. AS LONG AS IT'S ALL ON HER OWN DEFINED BORDERS AS CREATED IN 1948!!!!
I do NOT support the "only democracy in the Middle East" that steals/occupies land and then repopulates them with "right to return" citizenship laws, humilates people that have lived there for thousands of years, and seems to be given a pass on killing civilians as "accidents" and "collateral damage".
See, deepblue, I am not consumed with hate like you. I don't support violence against Israel nor do I condone her's. It's no support that Harper's policy is about as simplistic as his base - i.e. you - because again, it's all about hate, hate, hate. And you too are "safe", unaffected by an occupying "democracy" next door.
It must be nice to live in the one-dimensional world that you do.
Posted by: John Leningrad | 2006-11-14 8:40:27 AM
yada, yada yada....
"Ah, the old "moral relativism" busslshit - the same one that decries 3000 people dying on 9-11 but authorizes the US to kills tens of thousands elsewhere."
Actually yes it does, just as incursions and kidnappings give the Israelis the same right.
"See, deepblue, I am not consumed with hate like you."
Your hate is the least of your worries, it is your blatant stupidity that should concern you.
And your right, unlike you I recognize the fact Canadians are completely spoiled by living next to the US, and appreciate they have supported democracy and freedom throughout their history.
I wish Canadians could make the same claim. Instead since Trudeau "modernized" Canada, fence sitting, and taking cheap shots, much like socialist Europe, has become our foreign policy.
That is at least, till Harper came along.
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-11-14 9:38:55 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.