PKT read this

[Curious George]

Having more then two official parties will do that to you .

:-) I am having a blast.

[civiltech]

Originally posted by SJB
I am a born and raised Albertan. Trust me, I have enough experince with the Alliance and western Canadians, to know what they do and do not stand for. It's not hard to get elected when you play on emotions rather then a platform.



The Alliance IS the status quo. They are a right-wing party that stands for privitization of health care and for tax cuts for the wealthy. Basically, here in Alberta they represent oil men.
Also, some of them are "hicks", need we recall such Alliance remarks as the "asian invasion", Steven Harper's homophobic slight at Svend Robinson, or Myron Thompson's Pro-War "I am so happy my son is in the US Marine Core in Iraq fighting for 'democracy'" speech?
Or maybe we should talk about Stockwell Day and his religious fundamentalism and his connections to Jim Keegstra among others subjects.
While I do by no means like the Liberals, I would rather have them in power then the Republican party of Canada.



Our low taxes mean nothing. Our energy rates have gone up since our utilities were deregulated, our health care has gone up since the government keeps "delisting" services, the annual budget for post-secondary education in Alberta is $12 million between thirteen instituitions, rural area colleges get as much funding as U of C and U of A thus I pay the third hightes tuition in the country for a school that ranked second last in Maclean's. One percent of Alberta's oil revenues are equal to U of C's annual budget.
We also have the strongest economy in the country with the lowest mimimum wage, $5.90/hr, Newfoundland, of all places, has a higher minimum wage then we do.



See above.

I am a member of the Canadian Alliance. I have sat as a Board Of Director in several constituency's and have been there since the reform days. I, as well as most of my colleagues do not believe in a private health care system. In fact, it IS NOT part of our platform. I also am strongly against the war. Like many other members. We are a "GRASSROOOTS" party, meaning the people have the say. Candidates for elections are chosen by the local constituents, not appointed by the party head office....etc.

Again, I will simply state your comments are just trying to lump us all together. You are stereotyping the party, and do not even know what the party represents.

Off the cuff remarks are made by many parties, and many members. When that Liberal MP called the American's a bunch of bastards, (forgot her name) does that mean all Liberals think that way? NO. All Canadians...no!

Now, if you do want to know what the Canadian Alliance stands for....you can always check out our website.


http://www.canadianalliance.ca

If you would like a policy book detailing our platform, please forward your address to me. I will be happy to forward that on to you, free of cost. (You could say I have some "experience" with the CA policy books. )

Your comments on Stockwell Day are bewildering...the CA's issues with Stockwell stem from biased media.....but that was another thread that you can review and comment on.

The Canadian Alliance does not stand for a republic. Like every party, there platform does not include a statement on the Monarchy, because that is who they work for! While government's change, the Head of State is the Head of State!


I cannot find anything in your above noted post that is accurate to the CA.

I will comment on your provincial statements later. You are 50% correct, but have missed the point of the governments decisions. However, you province is reaping the rewards of that governments decisions.

[Curious George]

I am a member of the Canadian Alliance. I have sat as a Board Of Director in several constituency's and have been there since the reform days. I, as well as most of my colleagues do not believe in a private health care system. In fact, it IS NOT part of our platform. I also am strongly against the war. Like many other members. We are a "GRASSROOOTS" party, meaning the people have the say. Candidates for elections are chosen by the local constituents, not appointed by the party head office....etc.

Again, I will simply state your comments are just trying to lump us all together. You are stereotyping the party, and do not even know what the party represents.

Off the cuff remarks are made by many parties, and many members. When that Liberal MP called the American's a bunch of bastards, (forgot her name) does that mean all Liberals think that way? NO. All Canadians...no!

Now, if you do want to know what the Canadian Alliance stands for....you can always check out our website.


http://www.canadianalliance.ca

If you would like a policy book detailing our platform, please forward your address to me. I will be happy to forward that on to you, free of cost. (You could say I have some "experience" with the CA policy books. )

Your comments on Stockwell Day are bewildering...the CA's issues with Stockwell stem from biased media.....but that was another thread that you can review and comment on.

The Canadian Alliance does not stand for a republic. Like every party, there platform does not include a statement on the Monarchy, because that is who they work for! While government's change, the Head of State is the Head of State!


I cannot find anything in your above noted post that is accurate to the CA.

I will comment on your provincial statements later. You are 50% correct, but have missed the point of the governments decisions. However, you province is reaping the rewards of that governments decisions.

You are a member of the Canadian Alliance?
Is that your job?
Where did you get your sat as a Board Of Director in several constituency's and have been there since the reform days?
I have
a lot of likes and dislikes.
Do you mind if I tell other people:
said as well as most of your colleagues do not believe in a private health care system.
Is that a fact. What is it? Also? Do you mind if I tell other people you are strongly against the war.
Interesting comparison.Do you think I am a GRASSROOOTS party meaning the people have the say too?All of them?How do you usually introduce yourself?
Again, Congratulations.You think I am stereotyping the party and do not even know what the party represents.On and off.The past and future are one. Are you serious?I think there are a few exceptions. Are you serious?Why now? I will let you know if I do.No I don't think I can do check out our website.My brain pattern set does not have a response for that.
OK Let's talk about you.Congratulations.I could but let's get back to that later.:-) What about yours?Is that a fact.And.
I thought it was too.Is that a fact.Interesting comparison.Good point.You might find that I am anything in your above noted post that is accurate to the CA.Do you think your plan will succeed?You think I am 50% correct but have missed the point of the governments decisions.Interesting gossip:
said I province is reaping the rewards of that governments decisions.

[civiltech]

Originally posted by lochinvar
The only thing I've noticed about Canadians--on this board, at least--is that they tend to turn every discussion into a political debate...

Is that a stereotype? Well, if the shoe fits...

This is about the first statement I have heard today that I agree with!! You should have a special forum for people like us that get in the way of normal citizen's postings!! Institutionalize us Canucks with a chip on our shoulders!

PKT are you with me?

[Curious George]

This is about the first statement I have heard today that I agree with!! You should have a special forum for people like us that get in the way of normal citizen's postings!! Institutionalize us Canucks with a chip on our shoulders!

PKT are you with me?

You don't say.Perhaps next time I will try it.:-) What were we talking about again?
I think there might be a few exception.

[pkt]

Originally posted by lochinvar
The only thing I've noticed about Canadians--on this board, at least--is that they tend to turn every discussion into a political debate...

Is that a stereotype? Well, if the shoe fits...

Lochinvar,

Alas, your observation is quite correct.
I've sat with Cdns at dinners in Mexico, guess what we ended up talking about.
Yup, complaining about the gov't, the politicians, and of course the Americans!

That's why we're having dinner w/ the Cdns not the Americans...

Remeber, I'll reiterate this for the nbenefit of those who are new to the threads:
Like everyone, there are likeable and not-so-likeable people. I like a lot of Americans, I simply do not like the current Administation - pls don't get me started (read my tag at the end...)

PK

[civiltech]

The US won't invade Syria for at least a year if they ever do. Right now it would be a public relations disaster, and an undeniable statement from George Bush that he's declared war on the middle east!

It won't happen.

[KBayDog]

http://www.billoreilly.com/currentarticle

[KBayDog]

"Linchpin of the English-speaking world"top^

"Canada is the linchpin of the English-speaking world. Canada, with those relations of friendly, affectionate intimacy with the United States on the one hand and with her unswerving fidelity to the British Commonwealth and the Motherland on the other, is the link which joins together these great branches of the human family, a link which, spanning the oceans, brings the continents into their true relation and will prevent in future generations any growth of division between the proud and the happy nations of Europe and the great countries which have come into existence in the New World." Speech given at a luncheon in honour of Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada, Mansion House, London, September 4, 1941.

[SJB]

Good ol' Bill O'Reilly, always good for a laugh.

[pkt]

Craig, et al,

Am I the only one to have others name a thread in my name?
Looks like it, doesn't it?

I'm honoured.

--)----------


KBD,

You've discovered the imprtance of being Canada.
We're not a powerful country, but we're influential inthe English-speaking world.

We used to have a tourney here in Vancouver of doing exactly that: offer an important tourney for western Candians to fence against the American from the US PAcific Northwest.

But alas with the advent of the NAC the tournament fell into insignificance...

As worldwide anti-Americans sentiments grow, American abroad have taken to wearing the Maple Leaf.

OTOH, when Cdns are in the States, they have NOW since the start of the attack on Iraq taken to not revealing their Cdn ID for fear of attacks, etc. According to news reports, not only are French and German goods being boycotted, so have some Cdn products, even though the companies that sell the products are not Cdn: Cadada Dry and Canadian Club are both woned by British firms. On the other hand, Molsons is thought to be German???

--)----------

I just watched Steven Spielgerg's article/first movie 'The Duel' [ an updated name might be 'Road Rage'] again. It stars Dennis Weaver. If you have not read the Playboy article - Yes, I actually did READ this in Playboy wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more, say no more, you're a man of the world, eh, eh? - or seen either the 1-hour short which got made into a full-length movie, you hould seek it out, esp. now.

It reminds me of the parallel one can draw with current events.

The tractor with the gasoline trailer is the USA. Dennis Weaver playing a travelling salesman in a Valiant is any small country that the former didn't take a liking to.

That's all I'll say. Let those of us who don't know anything about this to do some personal research and find out for himself/herself.

PK

[pkt]

Originally posted by SJB
Good ol' Bill O'Reilly, always good for a laugh.

SJB,

which side of the political divide is Bill O'Reilly on?

I guess from the sound of it, when and if you watch his programme, you say a lot of "O'Reilly!"

bad joke.

PK

KBG

where did you dig up that quotation of McKenzie King from?

do you know who he was other than the fact that he was our WWII wartime Prime Minister?

PK

[SJB]

PKT-

Bill O'Reilly is another republican talking head, more right-wing then Rush (to the buffet) Limbaugh.

[pkt]

This post is dedicated to all my Canadian compatriots who subsribe to the stand that can be summed up thus:
"We should join the Americans in this attack on Iraq because the US is our friend."
The UN be damned.
International law be damned.


This is the kind of turmoil the attack on Iraq is causing in Canada. This is not a debate any more. It's verging on McCarthyism. It follows very much along the Dubya line of 'If you're not for us, you're for the terrorists." dogma.



civiltech,
since you're a memeber of the Canadian Alliance [CA], please read this and give your feedback.

PK


Background information:
1. For our American friends, the leader of CA, Stephen Harper has been taking the Cdn gov't to task - as the Opposition is suppose to do - but the CA is the ONLY Oppositon party that is taking the "America is our friend, and we should go to war even though the UN did not sanction the military action." stance that is opposed to by Ms Pearson and the other Opposition Parties. According to respected non-partisan polls, the majority of Cdns support the Cdn gov't stance of supporting the attack on Iraq ONLY IF the UN sanctions it. The CA's party doctrine is to represent their constituents' wishes even thought it is against the party line.
2. National Post is one of two national papers in Canada. The other one is of course the Globe and Mail where the followig Comment piece was printed. National Post have writers like Diane Francos and Paul Fromm - he who was the speechwriter who coined the phrase 'axis of evil' when he worked for Dubya. The paper is owned by CanWest whose majority owner is Isreal Asper - from his name you can tell his political bias in the Middle East. This is a neo-conservative paper.
3. "In 1957 Lester B. Pearson was awarded Nobel Peace Prize for his greatest diplomatic achievement, proposal of sending UN peacekeeping force to the Suez Canal area.
"He became the fourteenth prime minister of Canada in 1963, when the Liberal party, whose leader he was, won the elections. During his term, the Canadian flag was adopted, the Canada Assistance Plan and Medicare were introduced, as well as the Canada Pension Plan. He is also responsible for the introduction of bilingualism and biculturalism in Canada."


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...tricia+pearson


TODAY'S PAPER
COMMENT

See no evil, no more

Being pro-American was one thing, but the National Post's Canada-bashing finally went too far, says the paper's former columnist PATRICIA PEARSON

By PATRICIA PEARSON
Saturday, April 19, 2003 - Page A19

I suppose it's rare, nowadays, to see journalists quit their jobs to protest their paper's politics. We talk about media oligarchies, about their corporate agendas, their "bias." But we view them as monoliths and don't expect the living souls of which they are comprised to beg to differ. There is the bias of Al-Jazeera, the bias of CNN, the liberal bias of The New York Times.

"Did The New York Times watch the same war as the rest of us?" a hawkish columnist wondered in The Wall Street Journal the other day.

Could she be more specific? The New York Times is a collection of hundreds of individual editors, reporters and commentators, some as conservative as William Safire and others as left-wing as Bob Herbert, some reporting straight from Iraq, while others remain cloistered in film-screening rooms or on their beats.
Were they all watching the war with one, miraculously fused pair of eyes? No. And for the past three years, working as a columnist for the National Post, I saw a different world than my colleagues on the paper's op-ed page. I described the view from where I stood, and if the Post was perceived as "right-wing," then so be it. I, myself, and many wonderful reporters and editors there, were not.

So I did not quit the Post because of its bias. Not exactly. What I want to explain is that I quit because of mine.

It happened gradually, by increments and subtle turns. But being a liberal columnist at the Post grew increasingly unpleasant. A paper that started out as imaginative and vibrantly skeptical began sliding into orthodoxy. A kind of Political Correctness, so excoriated as a disease of the left, began to prevail.

When CanWest, controlled by the Asper family, acquired the paper from Conrad Black, I no longer dared to express sympathy for Palestinians. When my editor, of whom I am fond, revealed a deep suspicion of environmentalism, I self-censored in favour of conviviality. When I mentioned that Canadians were more tolerant of abortion than Americans, I found myself accused by another columnist in the paper of "being more persuaded than the rest of us" by the merits of enforced abortion in China. That, in turn, unleashed a flood of hate mail from the pro-life crowd.
It was vexing, but not intolerable. I simply felt as I imagine a man would in a roomful of radical feminists.

Then came the prelude to the war in Iraq and, with it, a deep unease throughout the world about the massive, rumbling shift in the international order. The White House stamped its foot impatiently while the world thought the implications through, and emotions intensified. At my paper, they exploded.

Debate -- so critical for Canadians at this juncture -- was trounced at the Post by a sort of Shock and Awe campaign against any liberal position, not only from the neo-cons' favourite wit, Mark Steyn -- who treats punditry as a sport and shoots liberals like skeet -- but also from every other editorial writer on the page.

Perhaps 9/11 knocked them off their horse on the way to Damascus. I cannot presume to say. But the paper got religion. What arose from the editorial page, with remarkable intensity, was a neo-conservative vision of America that did not remotely reflect the America that I once lived in, and continue to love and respect. Instead, it was a cultish adoration by Bush people of American power unleashed.

This vision of America blatantly favours the rich, displays a breathtaking indifference to the environment, crushes civil liberties, manipulates patriotism by stoking fear, insults its allies, and meets skeptics with utter contempt.

To see it confused with America per se was actually shocking. When Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia -- an American, I believe, but the Post might wish to check his ID -- stood up on Capitol Hill last month and said, "today, I weep for my country," he was expressing the concern of many. Fascism rising. But, to the Post, such objections to the neo-conservative vision became an unpatriotic heresy to be heaped with scorn.

How astonishing, utterly, to watch a Canadian newspaper presume itself to be more pro-American than the most senior politician in the United States Senate.

At times, the Post's hostility to critics of the war was simply childish. There wasn't a peace movement. There was a "peace" movement, quote unquote. There wasn't a valid argument that UN inspectors be given more time to find Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, or that pre-emptive invasion should be seriously hashed out in light of precedents in international law, or that an alternative to force might be imagined.

All along at the Post, protesters were dismissed as loathsome "peace" activists indulging "an infantile nostalgia for anarchy" whilst "wrapped in the warm fuzz of self-righteousness." In recent days, such people were said to have betrayed "our best friend" America, and should stop "henpecking" U.S. forces to restore order in Iraq, because they really ought to be "too busy eating crow."

Note the lack of grace here, the meanness of spirit, the selective memory and the gloating. Not a day went by this month when I didn't want to write a letter to the editor of my own newspaper.
But even still, that wasn't what prompted me to hand myself a pink slip. What finally provokes a journalist to resign in protest of bias? The answer is when she begins to feel that that bias is doing her nation harm.

Allow this piece to stand as my retort to columnist Diane Francis, who wrote in last Saturday's Post that unlike American patriotism, which is fabulous, "Canadian nationalism is an oxymoron." Really, Ms. Francis? Well, call me a freak of nature, but I am an ardent Canadian nationalist. I love my country, and I am fiercely proud of it.

I cannot sit back and watch this nation attacked, relentlessly and viciously, by a newspaper that would trash so much of what we believe in, from tolerant social values to international law, belittling us for having our beliefs, while turning around and saying that what makes America great is Americans' ardour in defending their beliefs.

I can not be a part of a newspaper that would hector our business community into fearing that Canada is to blame for the deterioration in U.S.-Canada relations, when the Americans themselves concede that the White House has fence-mending to do.

I am in Mexico now. Remember Mexico? That other, vulnerable satellite state that opposed unsanctioned U.S. action? I sit here watching the Mexicans comfortably and elegantly banter about that "loco" George Bush, a man who -- as Carlos Fuentes mused recently in a conservative paper -- was less threatening when he was drunk, and I weep for those of my countrymen who have been made to feel ashamed by the Post.

O Canada, Ms. Francis. The fact that I bugger up the verses at ball games doesn't mean that I don't get the meaning of the song. I sat at the knees of my grandfather as a child, absorbing the love he felt for this country with every exhaled breath, and you cannot -- and will not -- make me betray him in favour of becoming George Bush's "best friend."

Patricia Pearson, an award-winning writer, was a columnist for the National Post until this week. She is the granddaughter of Lester B. Pearson.

[civiltech]

As usual, popular media has twisted a stance to sell newspapers.

However there hear tremors in the CA of Anti-war, and stop cow-towing to the Yankees murmor.

The Canadian Alliance, (in my humble opinion) is simply stating we've left our brothers to the south totally abandonded. Whether we should have gone to war or not is not the point. Our closest friend, trading parterner, and ally, has literally been given the cold shoulder. There has been tensions lately because of Cowboy George's trading practises, but all in all, we seem to be brushing off our neighbour. Like our Prime Minister, we all understand it's a very delicate situation. That's why Jean Chretien was given so much hastle by the media on his government's position on the war. It wasn't that they didn't have an official policy, it was that there policy wasn't a neat little package of black and white for the media to reproduce in one paragraph. Simply put, this whole issue is a red herring.

The government has taken a stance, and Her Majesty's Official Opposition is challenging the decisions to make sure they are the correct one's for the Country. They are pointing out any weak or disreprent points, to ensure that on an international platform, we are covered, and looking proffesional!

I choose to read between the lines sometimes. Let's face it, politics is it's own little industry, with it's own lingo, and "stick handling" and positioning like everything else!

[pkt]

civil,

did u write that last post yourself or did someone hijacked your computer:
There are so many more typos than usu. was the first thing I noticed.
then there's 'cow-towing'. I guess you're alluding to the herd mentality.
Then there's the 'it's' rather than 'its' ...


--)----------

"It wasn't that they didn't have an official policy, it was that there policy wasn't a neat little package of black and white for the media to reproduce in one paragraph. Simply put, this whole issue is a red herring. "

I thought the Liberal gov'ts' policy was quite succinct:
"Canada will not participate in the attack on Iraq without the UN's sanctions."

In other words, Canada will participate if the UN approved it.

"They are pointing out any weak or disreprent points, to ensure that on an international platform, we are covered, and looking proffesional!"

No other countries pay attention to the debate in our little House on the Hill unless it is gov't policy or law affecting them.

It's strange: I thought the Liberal gov't stance IS not only professional, it is also LEGAL in the eyes of the International Criminal Court... So by not going to war, Canada IS covered.

The one disturbing thing about the CA's and their supporters' stand on the attack on Iraq is that the subtext - the between the line stuff you refer to - is this:
"We should go to war in Iraq because our cousin, our closest trading partner is, legality be damned."

Is that what the CA's positio? Because that's what came through to me listening to Stephen Harper. He harps on it too much!

PK

[civiltech]

Originally posted by pkt
civil,

did u write that last post yourself or did someone hijacked your computer:
There are so many more typos than usu. was the first thing I noticed.
then there's 'cow-towing'. I guess you're alluding to the herd mentality.
Then there's the 'it's' rather than 'its' ...


--)----------

"It wasn't that they didn't have an official policy, it was that there policy wasn't a neat little package of black and white for the media to reproduce in one paragraph. Simply put, this whole issue is a red herring. "

I thought the Liberal gov'ts' policy was quite succinct:
"Canada will not participate in the attack on Iraq without the UN's sanctions."

In other words, Canada will participate if the UN approved it.

"They are pointing out any weak or disreprent points, to ensure that on an international platform, we are covered, and looking proffesional!"

No other countries pay attention to the debate in our little House on the Hill unless it is gov't policy or law affecting them.

It's strange: I thought the Liberal gov't stance IS not only professional, it is also LEGAL in the eyes of the International Criminal Court... So by not going to war, Canada IS covered.

The one disturbing thing about the CA's and their supporters' stand on the attack on Iraq is that the subtext - the between the line stuff you refer to - is this:
"We should go to war in Iraq because our cousin, our closest trading partner is, legality be damned."

Is that what the CA's positio? Because that's what came through to me listening to Stephen Harper. He harps on it too much!

PK

Apologies on the spelling!

To repeat myself: I support the Liberal Government's stance on the War in Iraq. Many people do. Many members of the Alliance do believe it or not!
Stephen Harper is not beating the war drum. He is acting responsibly as the Official Opposition, questioning the government's every move. And the CA does it very well. A lot of our critic's input, in fact our party's policies, have been adopted by the present government over the last couple of terms and legislated!

Reread my post, but this time try not to think that I am chewing on the Liberal Gov't, or anyone else. Just read it for what it is.

[civiltech]

Hey PKT,


Just a quick note, but I rarely read the whole of articles over a page long. My attention span leaves a lot to be desired! I will comment only on your written responses, (and refernced where required). I can't bring my Canuck mind to read entire articles from the Globe and Mail, The Toronto Czar....I mean the Toronto Star, etc.

[pkt]

civil,

I've learned that the 'proper' writing style mote reporter/columnist use the point, i..e their argument they're trying to make is usu. in the last para. the rest of the article is the evidence, etc. to buttress the conclusion/argument.

PK