Guest regional for life Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 Great post. We live in a dictatorship ruled by the Liberals. Unless we adopt the popular vote system I'm afraid this will persist forever. Rush Limbaugh said it himself. Liberals form opinion based on what their heart tells them and disregard the relavant info., Conservatives form their opinion based on fact! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flax Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 Yeah ok, perhaps it's a bit heavy handed. But i never said anything about killing anyone. I don't think i'm far off from the first quote of yours. I do believe in free speech. Hence, my 'free speech' is to vehemently disagree with another's point of view. Why should i keep my opinions to myself when someone's free speech is fraught with falsehoods or stupidity? And then that POV contributes to things that are harming this once great country IMHO. So i'm not politically correct, apparently that has become a near crime in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flax Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 You know, i started reading your post and was shocked and somewhat impressed by some valid points you made. Although you have changed your "i'm European argument" to an extent that now properly explains the extent that some have had to swallow their pride and mask their true feelings when confronted with living with the devils. Now.. you speak so much of those who covertly endeavoured to undermine the Nazis. Quite a different tune from your first posts. As for Chretien receiving such a majority of opinion as you suggest... i put forth that he did not receive the majority of Canadian votes in the last election. Then you digress. And i quote "were i to find myself in agreement with you it would be grounds for suicide" .... So to recap... if you agreed that the war in Iraq were justified and that it was in the best interest of the average Iraqi to have Saddam Hussein's regime removed from power(my POV)... you would have grounds for suicide. well if that is the case then please don't agree with me, i don't want that on my conscience. No matter how much i disagree with you I don't want you considering such absurd actions. As for Chretien being fairly elected as you pontificated. Now i may be a tad off on the exact number here, but Chretien received 42% of the popular vote in Canada, yet holds a majority government. Is that fair? We followed our Canadian election rules and a court of law determined that the Americans followed theirs. Another quote "The fact that the US tried to coerce him by threats of economic retaliation to ignore the majority feeling in the country shows how much respect they actually have for democracy" I'm a little baffled here. Are you suggesting that Hussein received the majority of votes "fairly", and therefore the US (AND THE UN) have no right to impose sanctions? One minute you expound upon the UN as some great organization and the next you label UN sanctions as USA sanctions. Further.... do you believe that Saddam actually did receive 100% of the popular vote? Juan Chretien is more of a dictator than any other leader in the free world. As long as his MP's agree with him... support him (blindly)... vote on issues with 'the party'... then he will go to the wall for them. Is this a true democracy? Obviously not. Since when is it required policy to vote along with the party regardless of personal or constituent opinion. Oh yes... since Juan the dictator took power. I still stand by my opinion that you have an inferiority complex regarding the Americans, as do so many Europeans. No they aren't perfect... but i'm glad they have at least endeavoured to maintain world order for the last 40 years. Perhaps this world would be better off with the Berlin wall, Stalinist USSR, Saddam Hussein and a myriad of other totalitarian regimes, is that your wish? As George Constanza says, 'you can stuff your holier than thou spineless European inferiority complex in a sack' Are you forgetting the League of nations? That was one fine "UN-like" organization wasn't it. Appease, appease, appease. What is that quote... the only thing evil needs to prosper is for good men to do nothing? Oh yes let's not forget that once the US finally entered WWII (belatedly i might add), they saved both our asses and yours. Slag them all you want. But i'm glad they are around to look after our best interests in spite of the opinions of you and Juan Chretien. And no i don't wish to be American, in fact i'm totally opposed to some of their misguided policies such as gun control or their war on drugs. But i am fortunate to have them as neighbours and guardians of my way of life. So go on, keep quoting authors and intellects all you want. You won't change my opinion until you come up with some valid and rational arguments. I hope you get your wish to shake Juan's hand.. give him a little hug while you're at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rob Assaf Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 I find it interesting that you go back to the 60’s and Vietnam to vilify the Americans. Lets look at some other countries of historical note. Canada, our historical treatment of aboriginals, and in WW2 we seized property and interred CANADIANS of Japanese descent, kick us out of the UN. Germany, Italy, Japan; major protagonists of WW2, kick them out. France, Napoleon popularized the guillotine as well as conquering countries in Europe, kick them out. The Roman Empire, fantastic engineering, but rather hard on Christians and other countries of Europe, another strike against Italy. Just a FEW examples of some of the tyrant countries who at one time or another explored the world domination thing. As for our electoral representation? FYI my furry little friend, the current Liberal Govt. was elected with exactly 40.8% of the vote. Those stats are available at the elections Canada website. Not exactly majority of the vote in my books. Our PM was elected not by the voters but rather by liberal party members, at least Bush was elected by the voters. How about our non elected but appointed senate? Appointed by none other than our non elected PM and his predecessors. Alta 5 seats; Pop. 3,134,000 or one senator for every 626,800 B.C. 6 seats; Pop. 4,155,000 or one senator for every 692,500 Sask. 6 seats; Pop. 1,009,000 or one senator for every 168,166 Man 6 seats; Pop. 1,150,000 or one senator for every 191,666 Ont. 22 seats; Pop 12,109,000 or one senator for every 550,409 Que. 23 seats; Pop. 7,467,000 or one senator for every 324652 N.F. 6 seats; Pop. 531,000 or one senator for every 88,500 N.S. 9 seats; Pop. 944,000 or one senator for every 104,888 N.B. 9 seats; Pop. 756,000 or one senator for every 84,000 PEI 3 seats; Pop. 140,000 or one senator for every 46,666 If you consider that representation by population or land mass you are an idiot. Looks like BC and Alberta get royally screwed, again. Taxes, I’d be more than happy to pay them if I thought it was being assessed fairly and equally. Taxation in this country cannot claim this. I’d also be happy to pay my fair share if I thought I was getting value for money. As a consumer, I have the right to not patronize an establishment if they do not meet my expectations. Unfortunately, I do not have this option with this government and Canada Customs and Revenue. An example of this might be the cancelled purchase of helicopters ordered by the previously elected PC govt, the cancellation payments of same and the subsequent purchase of new helicopters once again. Effectively paying twice for them and later delivery to boot. Courtesy of J.C. and the Federal Liberals. I can only surmise by your support for this defective system of representation that either you personally or a close relatives entire fiscal well being directly comes from association with the current govt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoomerPete Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 Care to explain that remark? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kal Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 'at least Bush was elected by the voters.' Actually Al Gore was elected by the voters. Dubya was elected by the electoral college with a lot of help from his little brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cargo Agent Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 Actually as previously stated, the US courts ruled the election valid. Or was that rigged too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mars Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 You seem to favor the American vote system. Therefore, you should like their snate which is designed to give each state an equal voice, only 2 senators each. California has a senator for about 15 million residents each, while Maine has one for about 500,000. Oh, wait, that would 'screw' the West. I think the West and the Atlantic would both be 'screwed' if your vision of senators in an effective senate (if that ever happens) based on population gave Ontario and Quebec an even larger strangle hold on Federal politics than they have now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schooner69 Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 Flax posted: "So i'm not politically correct, apparently that has become a near crime in this country." COMMENT PC has nothing to do with it, mon ami. But when your argument includes words like "stupid", "dense", etc., you weaken your POV. It has been my experience that the appearance of invective is the first indication of a suspect argument. At the risk of driving you further towards apoplexy, I confess to supporting Canada's stand on the issue. But don't think it's because I'm a pacifist....as a former fighter pilot, I'd like nothing more than to be doing what I was trained to do. Hell, I'd even volunteer for Apaches! Especially in an environment like Iraq. I think the US jumped the gun...here we are with the main battles over, and we still don't have the smoking gun. I'm beginning to think like some news columnists: it's not about the WMD; it may not even be about the oil. What it may be is an object lesson for other folks. Well, enough drivel. Time to flash up the GoldWing for the FIRST trip of the year. Eat you hearts out you cagers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kal Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 Rigged, like a bloodless coup??,, no I don't think so. Dubya, Jeb and the rest of the party just used the rules to better advantage than the other guy. Regardless dubya was not chosen by the majority of voters who chose to vote,,, no question about that. Democracy at it's best ,,wot?? Dubya and his own gang of 55 have stepped out into the brave new world of American pro-active foriegn policy. Seems to me that for this initial foray to have ANY legitimacy a couple of things need to happen. 1.) they better find ( with independant verification) a substatial amount of WMD. Not bits or traces but piles of it. 2.) As the USA (being a democracy and all) chose this course of action, freely and democratically, they (along with the UK) should bear the burden of reconstruction. that means no profit contracts to rebuild what they tore down. Otherwise this will just turn into an obsene make work project for the conquerors. The US and UK taxpayer should bear the burden of a foriegn policy that they chose to enact out of their own perceived best interest. To do otherwise will just confirm the worst of the allegations of the intent of the Dubya gov't. JMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rob Assaf Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 While the americans may not have a perfect senate system in terms of representation, 1. it is elected by the people and the terms are NOT for life. 2. so they have a system of 2 senators for every state, this is a least some sort of system where every state goes in equal, land mass nor population determine the number. A far cry from our pathetic non system which you cannot say is based on the population numbers nor land mass nor any other recognizable order. Chaos theory maybe. Still no debate on my points regarding the tax system though. Cheers, Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rob Assaf Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 2 senators for every state, so just over a hundred sentators to represent the population of the USA. We in canada have almost as many senators and one TENTH the population, with that kind of customer service ratio, we should have no complaints, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 Perhaps I was mistaken but, I understood your comments to be derogatory towards the US (red white & blue underwaer). My remark was intended to point out the fact that had the US /UN chosen not to invade Korea it today would be in North Korean hands and you wouldn't be enjoying employment with the southern flag carrier. If I was in error please accept my apology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest M. McRae Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 The US / UN did not invade Korea. I believe rather that they went to the air of the provisional Gov. of South Korea. Following is an interesting site re the Korean War. http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~korea/history.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest M. McRae Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 The US / UN did not invade Korea. I believe rather that they went to the aid of the provisional Gov. of South Korea. But of course you are correct in your statement re what would have happened if the UN had not taken action. Following is an interesting site re the Korean War. http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~korea/history.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoomerPete Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 My post above was simply intended to point out to RFL that his assertion that the US has never seized foreign soil or engaged in expansionist wars with less than altruistic intentions is historically inaccurate. If you consider the reference to red, white and blue underwear (an allusion to the fact that our western provinces would now be part of the US if President James Polk had had is way) derogatory then I'd suggest that you're becoming far to sensitive to even the vaguest of slights to your support of the US position. You are indeed correct that the success of South Korea (and hence my current job) owes a large debt to the contribution of the United States in stabilizing the region. Somehow, though, you neglected to note that that intervention came through a request from the Korean government to the UN (not the US) in the wake of the attack of the forces of Kim Il Sung. The US was not the only nation to answer the call. There were I think 28, including Canada which lost 516 men and women during the Korean War. What concerns me most about your response as well as several others posted on the subject is not the skewed rememberance of history, but the fact that you either state or imply (as you did with your reference to me owing my job ...) that support for the US position should be based on a sense of loyalty owed to them for past acts regardless of the facts of the current situation, as opposed to being on the basis of a clear and rational appreciation what the current facts are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoomerPete Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 My post above was simply intended to point out to RFL that his assertion that the US has never seized foreign soil or engaged in expansionist wars with less than altruistic intentions is historically inaccurate. If you consider the reference to red, white and blue underwear (an allusion to the fact that our western provinces would now be part of the US if President James Polk had had is way) derogatory then I'd suggest that you're becoming far to sensitive to even the vaguest of slights to your support of the US position. You are indeed correct that the success of South Korea (and hence my current job) owes a large debt to the contribution of the United States in stabilizing the region. Somehow you neglected to note that that intervention came through a request from the Korean government to the UN (not the US) in the wake of the attack of the forces of Kim Il Sung. The US was not the only nation to answer the call. There were I think 28, including Canada which lost 516 men and women during the Korean War. What concerns me most though, about your response as well as several others posted on the subject, is not the skewed rememberance of history but that you either state or imply (as you did with your reference to me owing my job ...) that support for the US position should be based on a sense of loyalty owed to them for past acts regardless of the facts of the current situation, as opposed to being on the basis of a clear and rational appreciation of what the current facts are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.