From NY Times



January 22, 2006

Conservative Party in Canada Appears Poised for Election Victory
By CLIFFORD KRAUSS
TORONTO, Jan. 22 - Unless every national poll here is off, what is
perhaps the world's winningest political party is heading toward a
humiliating defeat on Monday.
Stephen Harper, 46, an economist and social conservative who is writing
a history of ice hockey, appears poised to lead his Conservative Party
to victory over Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberal Party, something
that seemed highly improbable just a few weeks ago. The Liberals won the
last four national elections, governing Canada for 13 years - as the
party did for three-quarters of the last century.
But whether a Harper victory would represent a seismic shift in a
country that has long promoted itself as a beacon of social democracy
and frequent critic of American foreign policy remains an open question.
If he cannot muster a majority in the House of Commons, Mr. Harper may
lead a weak, unstable government opposed by three left-of-center parties
represented in Parliament.
Mr. Harper - in a campaign largely free of ideology - promised to cut
the national sales tax, grant families direct child care for
preschoolers and introduce mandatory prison sentences. A longtime member
of the House of Commons representing Alberta, he has a conservative
record, but he steered clear in recent months of promising major changes
to the national health insurance program.
The absence of strong ideological overtones would appear to make a
Thatcherite-style revolution unlikely, even in the face of a strong
Conservative showing. Mr. Harper even noted that judges appointed by
Liberal governments and an appointed Senate filled with Liberals would
serve as checks on his power.
"I'm basically a cautious person," Mr. Harper said in a recent speech.
"I believe it's better to light one candle than to promise a million
light bulbs."
A change in Ottawa would almost certainly bring, at the least, a warming
of relations with Washington, which have been strained since the
American-led invasion of Iraq and have worsened over a series of recent
trade disputes and Canadian moves to soften domestic drug laws.
Mr. Harper, while careful not to appear overly supportive of President
Bush, has suggested he would reconsider Canada's refusal to join
Washington's missile defense program. He has also promised to increase
military spending to make a bigger contribution to NATO and peacekeeping
operations in places like Haiti and Afghanistan. But he also said
recently that he had no intention of sending troops to Iraq.
Mr. Martin, a former finance minister and shipping executive, has tried
to emphasize the Liberal government's stewardship of the strong national
economy, marked by low inflation and unemployment, a strengthening
currency and a large federal budget surplus. He has promised to create a
national child-care program, expand aid grants to college students and
ban handguns.
These are not unpopular stances, but the decline of Liberal fortunes is
due less to any shift in Canadian public opinion than to two years of
federal inquiries documenting an embarrassing party money-laundering and
campaign-finance scheme designed to counter separatists after the close
1995 Quebec sovereignty referendum.
Adding to the Liberals' troubles, in the middle of the campaign federal
police investigators announced that they were looking into new reports
of possible Liberal government leaks of tax information to friendly
investors that spurred a flurry of insider trading.
And in Quebec, once a bastion of Liberal support, the party's free fall
quickened with the publication of a book documenting accusations that
the federal government laundered millions of dollars of illegal aid to a
group opposing separatists during the referendum campaign.
"Will you tell us, Mr. Martin, how many criminal investigations are
going on in your government?" was one of many stinging lines Mr. Harper
offered up in four televised debates. "We'll get past the scandals and
establish accountability in Ottawa."
In recent weeks, the Liberals tried to recover votes with attack
advertisements linking Mr. Harper to President Bush, who is unpopular in
Canada, and suggestions in speeches that Mr. Harper would attempt to
reverse the legalization of same-sex marriage and abortion rights.
"A Harper victory will put a smile on George W. Bush's face," one Martin
commercial said.
"The farthest of the U.S. far right - that's what Stephen Harper means
when he says it's time for a change in Canada," Mr. Martin told a rally
here. "Well let me tell you, Stephen Harper, the United States is our
neighbor, it is not our nation."
Various national polls in the final days of the campaign have shown the
Conservatives about 10 points ahead of the Liberals, but the
Conservatives may still fail to win a majority in the House of Commons.
A last-minute seepage of support from the social democratic New
Democratic Party to the ruling party might deny the Conservatives a
clear victory. Polls at the end of the week showed the Liberals making a
modest comeback, but pollsters said it would take a miracle for them to
win.
Mr. Harper leads a party that only three years ago merged a very
conservative Canadian Alliance Party with the much more moderate
Progressive Conservative Party, and the coalition is marked by regional
differences in social and economic outlook.
"There are different factions and backgrounds and points of view in the
Conservative coalition," noted Desmond Morton, a McGill University
historian. It will not be easy to manage the factions, he said.
"Can Harper control his own ideological instincts or clothe them in
language and concepts that most Canadians tolerate?" Mr. Morton asked.
Mr. Harper's greatest success has so far been his surprising
breakthrough in Quebec, a socially liberal province that has rejected
the Conservatives in the last several elections by taking votes away
from both the Liberals and separatist Bloc Quebecois.
The Bloc had been hoping to attract better than 50 percent of the vote,
which would have been an enormous symbolic victory heading into an
expected third sovereignty referendum in the next five years. Polls now
show the Bloc falling quite short of a majority, to the relief of
federalist forces that have been in retreat the last two years due to
the Liberal scandals.

€¢ Copyright 2006The New York Times Company Home Privacy
Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back
to Top

No longer poised... the Conservatives here in America are eating it up
i'm su

"See!!! The Canadians want to be "morally and ethically superior
too!!" God bless 'em... we may even save some room for 'em in heaven!"
Kev

"kevnbro" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> No longer poised... the Conservatives here in America are eating it up
> i'm su
>
> "See!!! The Canadians want to be "morally and ethically superior
> too!!" God bless 'em... we may even save some room for 'em in heaven!"
> Kev
>

Canada has been morally and ethically superior to America for decades. With
this election they may be on the way to changing that.

And, as anyone who pays attention knows, the main reason the conservatives
won is the disgust over the terrible corruption that has happened under the
liberals.


--
Peter Aitken

kevnbro a écrit :

> No longer poised... the Conservatives here in America are eating it up i'm su

My guess is they have no idea what a minority government means because
of the one party system in the US. It works like this. Harper cannot
get a majority of votes in the House to enshrine his objectionable
views as law, so he has to make an alliance with another party to get
at least 154 votes. The only party that can give him that is the Bloc
québécois (a party whose reason to exist is to defend Québec while
it prepares for separation) which is, by and large, social democrat.
The Bloc was the official opposition for two years back in the early
days of the Chrétien government, and was probably the best opposition
party ever. Harper will not be able to dictate any terms of alliance.
It will be the Bloc that will do that, and so there goes the consie
dream. To rule he must compromise and we know how consies see
compromise as failure :-)

Harper's dilemna is that there will be no turning back the civil
definition of marriage, there will be no abolishing abortion or
building up the military for service in Iraq or any of those other
caveman ideas espoused by the right. Down the drain, all those fine
promises he made to George last time they were canoodling at the
bathhouse. He will be lucky if he gets a budget through (that's what
killed Clark in 1980).

Also, if he makes Clark's mistake of behaving as though he has a
majority, he will be eliminated in the inevitable next election.
Basically, the Conservatives are being humiliated, as is just and
correct. They badly needed a slap upside the haid to bring them back
down to reality and to them, although they don't say it, this is worse
than losing the erection :-)

> "See!!! The Canadians want to be "morally and ethically superior too!!"

Satire. Good one :-) We didn't lie to start a war so I think we are
already morally and ethically superior :-)

Peter Aitken wrote:

> Canada has been morally and ethically superior to America for decades. With
> this election they may be on the way to changing that.
>
> And, as anyone who pays attention knows, the main reason the conservatives
> won is the disgust over the terrible corruption that has happened under the
> liberals.

While we did a little bend to the right, it is only enough for a minority
government, not enough for Harper to do anything stupid like joining Bush in
his unjustified invasion of Iraq. It really hurt to put an X next to the name
of the Conservative candidate but I was ****ed off by years of Liberals at the
trough. We paid millions for an inquiry to find out who was responsible for
$100 being paid to pro Liberal advertising company. It cleared Martin, but
those responsible never went to jail. No one was even charged. The last straw
for me was the proposal of a hand gun ban. The only problem with hand guns in
this country is a bunch of west Indian gangs in Toronto running around shooting
each other. They got rid of the previous police chief because he wasn't
suitably culturally sensitive and replaced him with a PC lackie.

Martin lost my the little bit of faith I had in him when he said that legally
registered handguns in this country were just a break-in away from being used
by criminals. I had to shake my head over that extensive coverage of the fire
arms instructor who has been charged with unsafe storage of his handguns. He
had them in a case so strong that it took the thieves two days to break into
it. Sounds pretty safe to me. The PC crowd wonders how a guy can get a permit
to keep restricted firearms in a neighbourhood that is dangerously rife with
gangs. I wonder how a neighbourhood can be so unsafe and not be subject to
increased police activity.

Peter Aitken wrote:

> Canada has been morally and ethically superior to America for decades. With
> this election they may be on the way to changing that.
>
> And, as anyone who pays attention knows, the main reason the conservatives
> won is the disgust over the terrible corruption that has happened under the
> liberals.

> Peter Aitken


Are you saying that, "even when under a corrupt liberal government,
Canada was "morally and ethically superior to America"? And that now
that there is a conservative government, that may change?
Maybe I don't see your point, you're basically saying there was
"terrible corruption" under the liberals and although superior (to the
U.S) morally and ethically, there's the possibility that under a
conservative government, there's the chance that you no longer will be.
So are you saying, you may go from corrupt to corrupt and if so, how
does that make you morally and ethically superior? Kev

kevnbro a écrit :

> Peter Aitken wrote:
>
> > Canada has been morally and ethically superior to America for decades. With
> > this election they may be on the way to changing that.
> >
> > And, as anyone who pays attention knows, the main reason the conservatives
> > won is the disgust over the terrible corruption that has happened underthe
> > liberals.
>
> > Peter Aitken
>
> Are you saying that, "even when under a corrupt liberal government,
> Canada was "morally and ethically superior to America"? And that now
> that there is a conservative government, that may change?
> Maybe I don't see your point, you're basically saying there was
> "terrible corruption" under the liberals and although superior (to the
> U.S) morally and ethically, there's the possibility that under a
> conservative government, there's the chance that you no longer will be.
> So are you saying, you may go from corrupt to corrupt and if so, how
> does that make you morally and ethically superior?

On November 15 2005, the former leader of what became the Conservative
party quoted Lord Acton:

"Mr. Speaker, the power consolidated in the Prime Minister's Office
would be a dream for anyone who wants total power. The Prime Minister
can and does appoint the Governor General who is also the commander in
chief of the armed forces, all lieutenant governors, senators, Supreme
Court judges, Federal Court judges, the cabinet, key positions on
regulatory agencies and the heads of major boards and commissions. That
is a dream for anyone who is seeking power.

"Lord Acton said that power tends to corrupt and absolute power
corrupts absolutely. Therefore, it is no surprise that judgment is
corrupted when one has that much power. I am not even putting a moral
tinge to it, just judgment itself."

The Conservatives are now in the Prime Minister's office, and if they
don't see the irony in being avowed Christians seeking to become
absolutely corrupt, well...to quote the Joker: What this town needs is
an enema!

kevnbro wrote:

> Are you saying that, "even when under a corrupt liberal government,
> Canada was "morally and ethically superior to America"? And that now
> that there is a conservative government, that may change?
> Maybe I don't see your point, you're basically saying there was
> "terrible corruption" under the liberals and although superior (to the
> U.S) morally and ethically, there's the possibility that under a
> conservative government, there's the chance that you no longer will be.
> So are you saying, you may go from corrupt to corrupt and if so, how
> does that make you morally and ethically superior? Kev

Perhaps it is a matter of scale. We had a lot of political patronage and money
being paid for work that wasn't done. It pales in comparison to launching an
invasion on a foreign country on the basis of faulty information, especially when
more accurate intelligence was repressed, and the awarding of huge untendered
contracts to a company formerly run by the VP to repair damage from a war before
it stars.

>Satire. Good one :-) We didn't lie to start a war so I think we are already morally and ethically superior :-)

Hey... "We" didn't start any war... our president did!
Nor do I claim to be superior to anyone in anyway (proclaiming
superiority is pharisaic) but I will say that polls show that the
majority of Americans currently dissaprove of the war in Iraq, feel
they were mislead into this war and no longer trust our government; I
think that speaks volumes for the American mind-set when it comes to
ethics. Kev

kevnbro a écrit :

> >Satire. Good one :-) We didn't lie to start a war so I think we are already morally and
> >ethically superior :-)
>
> Hey... "We" didn't start any war... our president did!
> Nor do I claim to be superior to anyone in anyway (proclaiming
> superiority is pharisaic) but I will say that polls show that the
> majority of Americans currently dissaprove of the war in Iraq, feel
> they were mislead into this war and no longer trust our government; I
> think that speaks volumes for the American mind-set when it comes to
> ethics. Kev

And how many innocent people have died getting there? We stayed out of
it entirely. No innocent people in Iraq were killed as a result of
Canadian participation, because there was no such participation.

Pointing out a fact is hardly pharisaic. It may however be jejune :-)

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> kevnbro wrote:
>
>> Are you saying that, "even when under a corrupt liberal government,
>> Canada was "morally and ethically superior to America"? And that now
>> that there is a conservative government, that may change?
>> Maybe I don't see your point, you're basically saying there was
>> "terrible corruption" under the liberals and although superior (to the
>> U.S) morally and ethically, there's the possibility that under a
>> conservative government, there's the chance that you no longer will be.
>> So are you saying, you may go from corrupt to corrupt and if so, how
>> does that make you morally and ethically superior? Kev
>
> Perhaps it is a matter of scale. We had a lot of political patronage and
> money
> being paid for work that wasn't done. It pales in comparison to launching
> an
> invasion on a foreign country on the basis of faulty information,
> especially when
> more accurate intelligence was repressed, and the awarding of huge
> untendered
> contracts to a company formerly run by the VP to repair damage from a war
> before
> it stars.
>

The corruption under the liberal government was of course wrong, but it is
just the counterpart to the Abramoff scandal and the way corporations have
bought most of the government in the US. But these things pale in comparison
to more serious matters. Compared to the US, how many countries has Canada
invaded illegally and without justification? How many innocent noncombatants
has it killed? How many of its own citizens has it killed and maimed? How
many people has it tortured and killed in prisons? How much illegal spying
on its own citizens has it conducted?

Get it?

Peter



--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths page at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm
>

> We paid millions for an inquiry to find out who was responsible for
> $100 being paid to pro Liberal advertising company. It cleared Martin, but
> those responsible never went to jail. No one was even charged.

The actual amount diverted has yet to be established. The overall
money involved was 250$ million but a substantial amount of that
appears to have been spent properly and on legitimate projects. So,
what Harper succeeded in doing was to force an election before
Canadians realized that the amount that was actually being discussed
was much less than they could imagine and that they could possibly
start forgiving the liberals (of Chrétien, not Martin as none of the
money was dispensed under his administration) for doing exactly what
they wanted them to do in the first place.

What Canadians are upset about is not that Québec was encouraged to
stay in Canada, but that it wasn't out of love...they had to pay for
it. And it's not like the Parti québécois benefitted financially by
it either. It's like trying to date a woman and then realizing that
her husband expects payment for that.

Well, boo hoo. Personally I fail to see what the complaint is. Those
who wanted this got what they wanted. The part that were kickbacks, I
agree that those should be prosecuted, but not all sponsorship
transfers were criminal. I've been dealing with these files for over
two years now. Quite a bit of it was as innocuous as any other
sponsorship.

What must also be noted is that the entire program was created under
Joe Clark. So perhaps the Conservatives have some share of
responsibility for it, except that Clark has dissociated himself from
Harper, thank the gods.

alsandor wrote:
> And how many innocent people have died getting there? We stayed out of
> it entirely. No innocent people in Iraq were killed as a result of
> Canadian participation, because there was no such participation.
>
> Pointing out a fact is hardly pharisaic. It may however be jejune :-)

I don't deny that many innocent people have died because of our
government's decision to go to war in Iraq; that however has little or
nothing to do with the morality of the masses in the U.S. as we had no
vote in the matter.
I will say that Americans will take aggressive actions toward anyone
who crosses our borders and murders 2,700 of our citizens and you might
be surprised what Canada would've chosen to do had it been 2,700 of
you.
Not being an American citizen, you're in no position to judge. Kev

Peter Aitken a écrit :

> Compared to the US, how many countries has Canada
> invaded illegally and without justification?

Afghanistan. In fact, we still have troops there.

> How many innocent noncombatants
> has it killed?

Hard to tell. Obviously much less than the US as we do not tend to
think of ourselves as a god's gift to mankind.

> How many of its own citizens has it killed and maimed? How
> many people has it tortured and killed in prisons? How much illegal spying
> on its own citizens has it conducted?

Well, that last one is currently under investigation. We know of at
least six Canadian citizens who were, based on the colour of their skin
and with the approval of the RCMP, transferred by US customs to Syria
where they were detained and tortured.

As it turns out, the one whose name appears on the investigation, Maher
Arar, was determined to be innocent of any wrongdoing and this was
known by our secret services BEFORE he was deported to Syria. So there
is no overwhelming reason to believe that the others are not similarly
innocent. And the fact that we don't think of ourselves as a target
for terrorists fails to fuel a climate where repressive fascistic ideas
are given credence.

In a climate of paranoia, we must always remember one of Hitler's
primary rules: people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one
(excerpt from the OSS profile on Hitler).

"kevnbro" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Peter Aitken wrote:
>
>> Canada has been morally and ethically superior to America for decades.
>> With
>> this election they may be on the way to changing that.
>>
>> And, as anyone who pays attention knows, the main reason the
>> conservatives
>> won is the disgust over the terrible corruption that has happened under
>> the
>> liberals.
>
>> Peter Aitken
>
>
> Are you saying that, "even when under a corrupt liberal government,
> Canada was "morally and ethically superior to America"? And that now
> that there is a conservative government, that may change?
> Maybe I don't see your point, you're basically saying there was
> "terrible corruption" under the liberals and although superior (to the
> U.S) morally and ethically, there's the possibility that under a
> conservative government, there's the chance that you no longer will be.
> So are you saying, you may go from corrupt to corrupt and if so, how
> does that make you morally and ethically superior? Kev
>

Well, Canada didn't invade a sovereign country, and justify the action using
an endlessly evolving set of lies.

kevnbro a écrit :

> I don't deny that many innocent people have died because of our
> government's decision to go to war in Iraq; that however has little or
> nothing to do with the morality of the masses in the U.S. as we had no
> vote in the matter.

Of course you did. You could have turfed Bush out of the oval orifice
in 2004 but you didn't.

> I will say that Americans will take aggressive actions toward anyone
> who crosses our borders and murders 2,700 of our citizens and you might
> be surprised what Canada would've chosen to do had it been 2,700 of
> you.

I don't follow that.

> Not being an American citizen, you're in no position to judge.

Being human means I'm in a position to express concern. I can repeat
the facts. I do not judge.

The Wolf wrote:

> Conservative Party in Canada Appears Poised for Election Victory
>
Another idiot for the plonk file.


--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

"kevnbro" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> alsandor wrote:
>> And how many innocent people have died getting there? We stayed out of
>> it entirely. No innocent people in Iraq were killed as a result of
>> Canadian participation, because there was no such participation.
>>
>> Pointing out a fact is hardly pharisaic. It may however be jejune :-)
>
> I don't deny that many innocent people have died because of our
> government's decision to go to war in Iraq; that however has little or
> nothing to do with the morality of the masses in the U.S. as we had no
> vote in the matter.

You *could* say that when the masses elected Nookular Boy the first time,
they couldn't have known that he'd invade another country. But, 54% elected
him the second time, knowing full well that he was a loose cannon. Does 54%
qualify as "the masses"? If not, what's the magic number?



> I will say that Americans will take aggressive actions toward anyone
> who crosses our borders and murders 2,700 of our citizens...

Got any thoughts on when we might take the aforementioned aggressive action
against the people responsible for 9/11?

Doug Kanter a écrit :

> Well, Canada didn't invade a sovereign country, and justify the action using
> an endlessly evolving set of lies.

Canada did participate in the invasion of Afghanistan, as part of a
NATO sanctioned operation and is still there. George invoked article 5
of the NATO Treaty, the mutual codefense agreement. So, one could say
it was sanctioned by more than the US but whether it was "legal" is an
entirely different matter. I would say not.

alsandor wrote:
> kevnbro a écrit :
> [snip]
> > I will say that Americans will take aggressive actions toward anyone
> > who crosses our borders and murders 2,700 of our citizens and you might
> > be surprised what Canada would've chosen to do had it been 2,700 of
> > you.
>
> I don't follow that.
> [snip]

That's probably a reference to the destruction of the World Trade
Center. You may not be familiar with the notion that the U.S.
government may do whatever it wants around the world as long as it
mouths the phrase "nine-eleven" while it's doing it. It's the idea of
a minority here in the U.S., but unfortunately it's the minority led by
Dick Cheney. -aem

>You *could* say that when the masses elected Nookular Boy the first time,
>they couldn't have known that he'd invade another country. But, 54% elected
>him the second time, knowing full well that he was a loose cannon. Does 54%
>qualify as "the masses"? If not, what's the magic number?

Yes, Bush was elected to a second term by a narrow majority margin (or
so we were told) but it wasn't a bloodlust that got him re-elected.
During his second term he very cunningly (more than likely Cheney's
idea as G.W is too stupid to pull this off himself) used the "moral
authority" and "moral clarity" cards which were aces-in-the-hole. When
you're dealing with a country that claims a 70%-75% christianity rate,
convincing them that you have "God on your side", is a guarantee of
vast support, (not too mention his admins. assault on *** marriage).
Even with such a hand, his battle for re-election was no cake-walk.
You also have to understand that a very large number of our elderly
still remember WWII and the importance of supporting the president
during a time of war- keep in mind also the "you're either with us or
against us" strategy the GOP used to garner support; basically saying
without actually saying it, "if you don't support me and my war you may
as well be a terrorist yourself".( His people knew what they were
doing.)
So criticize the American people all you want but know that our
history will be the ultimate judge and I don't think it's going to be
too kind to this administration. K

Default User a écrit :

> The Wolf wrote:
>
> > Conservative Party in Canada Appears Poised for Election Victory
> >
> Another idiot for the plonk file.

You've just figured that one out? Been abroad, have you? :-)

"kevnbro" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> >You *could* say that when the masses elected Nookular Boy the first time,
>>they couldn't have known that he'd invade another country. But, 54%
>>elected
>>him the second time, knowing full well that he was a loose cannon. Does
>>54%
>>qualify as "the masses"? If not, what's the magic number?
>
> Yes, Bush was elected to a second term by a narrow majority margin (or
> so we were told) but it wasn't a bloodlust that got him re-elected.
> During his second term he very cunningly (more than likely Cheney's
> idea as G.W is too stupid to pull this off himself) used the "moral
> authority" and "moral clarity" cards which were aces-in-the-hole. When
> you're dealing with a country that claims a 70%-75% christianity rate,
> convincing them that you have "God on your side", is a guarantee of
> vast support, (not too mention his admins. assault on *** marriage).
> Even with such a hand, his battle for re-election was no cake-walk.
> You also have to understand that a very large number of our elderly
> still remember WWII and the importance of supporting the president
> during a time of war- keep in mind also the "you're either with us or
> against us" strategy the GOP used to garner support; basically saying
> without actually saying it, "if you don't support me and my war you may
> as well be a terrorist yourself".( His people knew what they were
> doing.)
> So criticize the American people all you want but know that our
> history will be the ultimate judge and I don't think it's going to be
> too kind to this administration. K
>

A school counselor I'm acquainted with once said that throwing more and more
money at schools was pointless, to an extent, because about half the
population will always be moderate or below average in intellect. Not too
far from the 54%.

"Never anonymous Bud" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> I now remember why I quit using this group more than a year ago.
>
> Off-topic bullshit, and cliquish users.
>
> Bye-bye...

Expanding this thread in my news reader, I see 23 messages so far. If I
collapse the thread, I see just one message - the original. How many do YOU
see if you collapse the thread?

aem a écrit :

> > > I will say that Americans will take aggressive actions toward anyone
> > > who crosses our borders and murders 2,700 of our citizens and you might
> > > be surprised what Canada would've chosen to do had it been 2,700 of
> > > you.
> >
> > I don't follow that.
>
> That's probably a reference to the destruction of the World Trade
> Center. You may not be familiar with the notion that the U.S.
> government may do whatever it wants around the world as long as it
> mouths the phrase "nine-eleven" while it's doing it. It's the idea of
> a minority here in the U.S., but unfortunately it's the minority led by
> Dick Cheney.

Ok, I missed the allusion. Guess I don't live in constant recollection
of a single event as justification for breaches of treaties and
aggressive militarism, all of which will of course, if it hasn't
started already, come back to bite the US on the ass. For one thing,
the crippling debt that BWB is saddling all US citizens with should be
considered when deciding whether to impeach him for fraud or not.

I realize that this Cheney led minority has an ideological stranglehold
on the expression of truth, but all it takes is one to shout loud
enough to be heard over the buzz of rhethoric.

http://alsandor.net/5.jpg

alsandor wrote:
>
> I realize that this Cheney led minority has an ideological stranglehold
> on the expression of truth, but all it takes is one to shout loud
> enough to be heard over the buzz of rhethoric.
>
Gee, I really really wish that were true. Here in the U.S. one would
have to shout loud enough to be heard over the whipped (or owned) media
and over the 5-4 decisions of the Supreme Court. Former President
Jimmy Carter has participated in elections oversight around the world
for decades. He has said many times that he believes that Gore won the
2000 election. Even he has not been heard. -aem

alsandor wrote:

> And how many innocent people have died getting there? We stayed out of
> it entirely. No innocent people in Iraq were killed as a result of
> Canadian participation, because there was no such participation.
>
> Pointing out a fact is hardly pharisaic. It may however be jejune :-)

Not on the ground in Iraq this time. There was Canadian participation in the UN mandated Gulf
War. Canadian ships are still working in the gulf, and there are Canadians fighting alongside
American troops in Afghanistan.

kevnbro a écrit :

> keep in mind also the "you're either with us or
> against us" strategy the GOP used to garner support; basically saying
> without actually saying it, "if you don't support me and my war you may
> as well be a terrorist yourself".( His people knew what they were
> doing.)

That only works if you tacitly agree to buy in to the Big Lie. Silence
comes at a price, and when you realize that it's too high to pay, it's
too late. Remember the Stuttgart Confession, attributed to Pastor
Martin Niemoller:

When they came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a
communist.

When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not
a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not
a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews, I did not speak out; I was not a Jew.

When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

kevnbro wrote:

> I don't deny that many innocent people have died because of our
> government's decision to go to war in Iraq; that however has little or
> nothing to do with the morality of the masses in the U.S. as we had no
> vote in the matter.

You voted the Shrub to a second term. Maybe it wasn't you personally, and
maybe it wasn't a landslide, but after leading you into that war he was
re-elected.

> I will say that Americans will take aggressive actions toward anyone
> who crosses our borders and murders 2,700 of our citizens and you might
> be surprised what Canada would've chosen to do had it been 2,700 of
> you.
> Not being an American citizen, you're in no position to judge. Kev

The people who crossed your borders were not Iraqis, and there was no link
between them and Saddam. They were Saudis, your good buddies in the middle
east.

aem a écrit :

> alsandor wrote:
>
> > I realize that this Cheney led minority has an ideological stranglehold
> > on the expression of truth, but all it takes is one to shout loud
> > enough to be heard over the buzz of rhethoric.
>
> Gee, I really really wish that were true. Here in the U.S. one would
> have to shout loud enough to be heard over the whipped (or owned) media
> and over the 5-4 decisions of the Supreme Court. Former President
> Jimmy Carter has participated in elections oversight around the world
> for decades. He has said many times that he believes that Gore won the
> 2000 election. Even he has not been heard. -aem

Obviously you heard him (and so did I, but I can't do anything about it
from here, except offer moral and ethical support :-) ). Others must
have. You need to find them. What better medium is there than this
one?

"aem" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> alsandor wrote:
>>
>> I realize that this Cheney led minority has an ideological stranglehold
>> on the expression of truth, but all it takes is one to shout loud
>> enough to be heard over the buzz of rhethoric.
>>
> Gee, I really really wish that were true. Here in the U.S. one would
> have to shout loud enough to be heard over the whipped (or owned) media
> and over the 5-4 decisions of the Supreme Court. Former President
> Jimmy Carter has participated in elections oversight around the world
> for decades. He has said many times that he believes that Gore won the
> 2000 election. Even he has not been heard. -aem
>

Yeah, but he's not a manly man like Nookular Boy, because he "let" that
hostage thing happen in Iran. However, beheaded hostages in Iraq are somehow
not the fault of Nookular Boy.

>Former President
> Jimmy Carter has participated in elections oversight around the world
> for decades. He has said many times that he believes that Gore won the
> 2000 election. Even he has not been heard. -aem

He's had a few things to say and soon we'll be hearing it from his
son.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho...s/3689378.html

On 2006-01-24, kevnbro > wrote:
> No longer poised... the Conservatives here in America are eating it up
> i'm su
>
> "See!!! The Canadians want to be "morally and ethically superior
> too!!" God bless 'em... we may even save some room for 'em in heaven!"
> Kev

But, only if they send money!

nb

On 2006-01-24, kevnbro > wrote:

> they were mislead into this war and no longer trust our government; I
> think that speaks volumes for the American mind-set when it comes to
> ethics.

I seem to recall the American people being pretty damn gung ho in
favor of war on Iraq, specially after 9/11. The volumes spoken about
the American mind set is of its overwhelming stupidity.

nb ....traitor in the eyes of American mind-set

The Wolf wrote:
> From NY Times
>
>
>
> January 22, 2006
>
> Conservative Party in Canada Appears Poised for Election Victory

yeah, but what did they make for supper?
What does this have to do with RFC anyway?

Dave Smith a écrit :

> alsandor wrote:
>
> > And how many innocent people have died getting there? We stayed out of
> > it entirely. No innocent people in Iraq were killed as a result of
> > Canadian participation, because there was no such participation.
> >
> > Pointing out a fact is hardly pharisaic. It may however be jejune :-)
>
> Not on the ground in Iraq this time. There was Canadian participation in the UN
> mandated Gulf War. Canadian ships are still working in the gulf, and there are
> Canadians fighting alongside American troops in Afghanistan.

On March 27 2003, the CBC revealed that 31 Canadian military personnel
were serving in Iraq attached to British and US military units and that
it had been confirmed by the British that some of the 31 (the number
was not revealed) were in combat. Conversely, the US and British
military personnel attached to Canadian Forces were NOT sent into
battle.

However, this was done without the permission of the Canadian
government. The debate in the House on whether Canada was at war or
not was inconclusive. Certainly, the Canadian government never ordered
troops into combat against Iraqis. We have enough problems with
Denmark and their completely ludicrous claims to Hans Island :-)

"kevnbro" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> alsandor wrote:
>> And how many innocent people have died getting there? We stayed out of
>> it entirely. No innocent people in Iraq were killed as a result of
>> Canadian participation, because there was no such participation.
>>
>> Pointing out a fact is hardly pharisaic. It may however be jejune :-)
>
> I don't deny that many innocent people have died because of our
> government's decision to go to war in Iraq; that however has little or
> nothing to do with the morality of the masses in the U.S. as we had no
> vote in the matter.

Americans elected Bush (sort of) and overwhelmingly supported the
goivernment's actions, at least back then. In any case I am not talking
about individual morality but the morality the society as a whole including
its government.

> I will say that Americans will take aggressive actions toward anyone
> who crosses our borders and murders 2,700 of our citizens

As indeed should be done - but Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with that
attack. Hence the immorality of an unjustified and illegal invasion.

>Which had
and you might
> be surprised what Canada would've chosen to do had it been 2,700 of
> you.
> Not being an American citizen, you're in no position to judge. Kev

I beg your pardon? Where did you get that idea? In any case it's a stupid
idea - that one cannot judge the actions of a country unless one is a
citizen. If you really believe that then you would have to agree that
Americans had no right to judge Saddam's regime. Do you believe that?

--
Peter Aitken

"aem" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> alsandor wrote:
>>
>> I realize that this Cheney led minority has an ideological stranglehold
>> on the expression of truth, but all it takes is one to shout loud
>> enough to be heard over the buzz of rhethoric.
>>
> Gee, I really really wish that were true. Here in the U.S. one would
> have to shout loud enough to be heard over the whipped (or owned) media
> and over the 5-4 decisions of the Supreme Court. Former President
> Jimmy Carter has participated in elections oversight around the world
> for decades. He has said many times that he believes that Gore won the
> 2000 election. Even he has not been heard. -aem
>

Not to beat a dead horse, but the recounts in Florida showed that Gore did
in fact win the 2000 election.


--
Peter Aitken

alsandor wrote:
>
> However, this was done without the permission of the Canadian
> government. The debate in the House on whether Canada was at war or
> not was inconclusive. Certainly, the Canadian government never ordered
> troops into combat against Iraqis. We have enough problems with
> Denmark and their completely ludicrous claims to Hans Island :-)
>


Maybe you can trade them [the Danes] Québec? It would be a "win win"
situation for everybody!

Best regards,
Bob

zxcvbob wrote:

> alsandor wrote:
> >
> > However, this was done without the permission of the Canadian
> > government. The debate in the House on whether Canada was at war or
> > not was inconclusive. Certainly, the Canadian government never ordered
> > troops into combat against Iraqis. We have enough problems with
> > Denmark and their completely ludicrous claims to Hans Island :-)
> >
>
> Maybe you can trade them [the Danes] Québec? It would be a "win win"
> situation for everybody!

I have close ties to Denmark. I wouldn't want to do that to them. :-)