Plus ca change....
- Thread starter Makhno
- Start date
Perhaps the silver lining to the sponsorship fraud is that it strongly affirms Canada's preference for social liberalism. How else can you explain the country sticking with the Liberals over the Conservatives?
I think you are right there ... if with all the shit going on with the Liberals, the Conservatives can't even stay even with them in the polls, let alone go in front then SHIT! If people won't buy what they are selling under these circumstances, they should just pack up their tents and all head out to McKay's potato patch for a good cry!S.G. Gibson said:
Tom
In a way, it's kind of too bad. I've met Stephen Harper a few times, and he's a genuinely nice guy. He's got a nice family, and is actually a good person to be around at a gathering. He's very intelligent, articulate, well-read, and a really critical thinker. And believe it or not, he's got a really good sense of humour.
But he's got some ideas, values, and morals, that just don't wash with the majority (including me). Unfortunately, his brand of politics is divisive at a time when it needs to bring people together. He lacks the flexibility needed to really succeed in politics, especially Canadian politics.
He is a man of intense faith - which isn't necessarily a bad thing, except that he is faithful to the extreme side of Christianity - one that prefers a scorched earth to allowing diversity and recognition of non-Christian values.
You guys nailed it - how loud a message is it that the majority of Canadians are willing to tolerate a government mired in corruption, rather than even give the time of day to the Conservative Party? They are fucking up big time - and I'm okay with that.
But he's got some ideas, values, and morals, that just don't wash with the majority (including me). Unfortunately, his brand of politics is divisive at a time when it needs to bring people together. He lacks the flexibility needed to really succeed in politics, especially Canadian politics.
He is a man of intense faith - which isn't necessarily a bad thing, except that he is faithful to the extreme side of Christianity - one that prefers a scorched earth to allowing diversity and recognition of non-Christian values.
You guys nailed it - how loud a message is it that the majority of Canadians are willing to tolerate a government mired in corruption, rather than even give the time of day to the Conservative Party? They are fucking up big time - and I'm okay with that.
My theory...
Is that stupid people have been breeding faster than smart people in this fair land of ours for 2 generations....lazy, ignorant, weak people are the majority, and their majority is growing, and these are the type of people who don't identify strongly with conservative values....our only hope is for educated people to start having more kids or to up the number of well-educated immigrants...mind you they probably now prefer Australia and the US to Canada mostly.
Is that stupid people have been breeding faster than smart people in this fair land of ours for 2 generations....lazy, ignorant, weak people are the majority, and their majority is growing, and these are the type of people who don't identify strongly with conservative values....our only hope is for educated people to start having more kids or to up the number of well-educated immigrants...mind you they probably now prefer Australia and the US to Canada mostly.
This is quite possibly the stupidest, most ignorant and ridiculous thing I've ever read.hornydude said:
This is the most articulate and thoughtful post I have read on PERB for a while.chiefwiggum said:
This may be the dumbest post I have read on PERB, ever! And that's saying something!hornydude said:
Actually, I respectfully disagree. Although Horneydude is known for stirring shit and some of the most classless posts in the history of PERB (I'm sure Horneydude will take that as a compliment and not an insult), I thought he nailed it right on the head when he said stupid people have been breeding faster. It's true! Smart people usually have 2-3 kids later in life, late 20's or early to mid 30's... usually after they are financially independent or comfortable, such that they can really devote time to being excellent parents. The lazy ignorant people have babies by "mistake" and before you know it, have 2-3 more and end up separated, on welfare, and draining public funds. Now, I'm setting myself up for flames here, since I know several SP's on this board have had babies at early ages. I am NOT saying EVERYBODY is like that, but as a generalization, I think horneydude makes a valid point.Hairball said:
Yea, I doth agree. Even as the Good Lord hath teacheth those that waxeth strong in the Holy Spirit, many more souls are stolen by Satan!!! Canada becomest the new Sodom and Gomorrah as it sanctions gay marriage that is abhorrent in the eyes of the Lord. Blessed is the USA for it hath been granted a President who hath been appointed by the Annointed One himself. Fearest thou Canadians for thee that hath sinnest against God, so shall He smite thy lands and raiseth thy taxes!!!hornydude said:
Well said, chiefwiggum. Have a donut!chiefwiggum said:
The Conservatives have not had an electoral opportunity like this in decades, yet not only have they failed to capitalize on it they are actualy losing ground to the Libranos.
Why? Because the voters do not see a moderate alternative in the Conservatives, who are being held hostage by a small band of born again zealots who can't see the forest for the trees and shove their regressive social agenda down our throats on every occasion. This select minority group is so far outside mainstream thought in this country that we now have the interesting scenario that voting for the Conservatives is is an even more unacceptable option than voting for a morally bankrupt group of thugs.
Until they break these ideological chains and get the zealot monkeys off their backs, Harper and the Conservatives will be destined to haunt the political wilderness for years to come.
Bum Rap for Stanfield
Makhno said:The more things change...
1974
To be fair to old Bob Stanfield, that pic was always a bum rap. Prior to that pic being taken he had been catching the football and passing it quite well. One fumble and his political career was pretty much toast.
Also what many Canadians probably didn't realize was that Stanfield and Trudeau were really 3 or 4 years apart in age with Trudeau being the one a little younger. Now compare that to their respective images. Trudeau was the dashing playboy with a great deal of sex appeal while Stanfield seemed like a politician who would have been more at home in the 1920's.
From what I understand male politicians nowadays are to go tie-less as much as possible and wear less expensive suits as to look more in touch with the common person. Always dressing to the t's, be the politician a man or a woman will end up costing them votes. In other words you dress according to the occasion.westwoody said:
What are your sources Mav? In all fairness (and without flames) I think an assertion that something is "true" should be supported with credible sources.maverick73 said:
And the Dubyah spoketh unto the nation, "Thou be awarest of weapons of mass destruction held by thine enemy. Thou bewarest of terrorist acts thine enemy was involvedeth with. Thou not concerneth thy selves with the truth."georgebushmoron said:
And the Dubyah once again spoketh unto the nation," Thou cheereth the deaths of thine enemies whileist thou be saddenedeth of the death of one individual because thou knowest life is sacredeth.
Here endeth the lesson.
Amen-est (Hey, its Bush what do you expectest?)
This is very interesting reading the posts on modern Canadian politics.
I hope I have all of the points correct:
1. One party promotes a political agenda that is supported by a plurality of the Canadian voters.
2. That same party has some elected members who are corrupt and dishonest.
3. There is another party that has not committed that moral lapse lately, probably because they have not been in office for a while.
4. The more honorable party (today) is not aligned with the political agenda of the voting public and this party wants to take the country in a different direction.
5. The Canadian voter must now choose between a party close to their political beliefs but corrupt and throwing them out of office for a party not politically acceptable.
Does that sound familiar?
I hope I have all of the points correct:
1. One party promotes a political agenda that is supported by a plurality of the Canadian voters.
2. That same party has some elected members who are corrupt and dishonest.
3. There is another party that has not committed that moral lapse lately, probably because they have not been in office for a while.
4. The more honorable party (today) is not aligned with the political agenda of the voting public and this party wants to take the country in a different direction.
5. The Canadian voter must now choose between a party close to their political beliefs but corrupt and throwing them out of office for a party not politically acceptable.
Does that sound familiar?
Definitely 1974. The photo was taken during a campaign stopover at North Bay Airport, on May 30, 1974.dirtydan said:I was wondering, was that pic from 1968 or really 1974? Seems to me the pic was his first campaign as federal Tory leader in 1968. Maybe we're both wrong and it's from 1972!
