Jump to content

Bizud

NF Fanatics
  • Content Count

    684
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • NF$

    838

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Bizud

  • Rank
    BOMB!

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

239 profile views
  1. I think there's an obvious qualitative difference between the kind of derision aimed at Bush by his detractors and the kind aimed at Palin by hers. And I don't know exactly what "Bush doctrine" means either. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heather-robi...l_b_227416.html
  2. It's funny how this kind of vitriol seems to be reserved for female politicians.
  3. Why the hell did you want me to watch this? It doesn't have anything to do with this thread and the guy is clearly insane. The US is looking to put its own people in acid baths! This is on the same level as fear of a national ID card. It's going to happen, they're going to put people in camps! Call me when it actually does happen and I'll be protesting with you. This lunatic is not even telling people to protest, he is telling them "get your guns and be ready." If this guy was my neighbour I'd move tomorrow. You guys should watch a little bit of that link - you'll waste a few minutes of your life but you'll never waste any more arguing with 365_days_gone again. That shit functions as a distraction, to occupy the attention spans (in a completely ineffectual manner) of people who are angry at state and/or corporate tyranny, so that they aren't instead devoting their energies to unraveling actual authoritarian structures and agitating for popular control of society.
  4. Yeah, I agree, the chances of a plan like that not being leaked are pretty much zero. The "9/11 truth" people are a bunch of wackos IMO. Like efforts to figure out the "truth" behind the Kennedy assassination, conspiracy theories are a real waste of time, which is why people in power pay them no attention. They're no threat and they occupy people who might otherwise actually be working to undermine power structures. It's interesting that there's so much overlap between these conspiracy theorists and right wing anti-government radicals, gun nuts, people concerned about "one world government" that wants to institute "population control" (oh no!), people concerned about mind control drugs in the water supply...
  5. If an alternative government-in-waiting exists that has the confidence of the House, the Governor-General pretty much has to invite them to form the government rather than dissolving parliament for an election. The Liberals won't vote against the budget unless the coalition deal is still on. This actually isn't a flaw in our system of government, but rather our political parties. MPs are free to vote however they want, but their leaders and whips will impose discipline because they can. The Reform party was supposed to change all that, isn't that funny? I think it is. Anyway, the UK has the same (Westminster) system we do, but voting against the party line is much more common, although some of that is probably due to the much larger House. This was only a crisis, however, because of our country's profound unfamiliarity with coalition government and the notion that the biggest party doesn't necessarily get to govern. And I don't think the coalition is dead by any means. I think the Liberals have a lot to lose if they back out now - why would anyone vote for a party that would turn down the opportunity to be in government?? People elected them to STOP STEPHEN HARPER - that is the main objective here for progressives in this country - and if they won't do that a lot of people will vote for another party that is more willing (though perhaps less able) to. Also, lesson leared. Don't feed the Objectivists.
  6. I would have preferred Rae (holding my nose) to Ignatieff, but whatever, at least the Liberals now have someone who can hold his own in a debate against Harper.
  7. The Conservatives do receive a lot of donations from their rank and file members. Building up that organization is how Reform became a credible political force in the first place - neither the Liberals nor the old Progressive Conservatives ever bothered seeking out donations en masse because it just wasn't necessary, before large donations were banned. That changed in 2002, and as of the 2004 election parties now receive $1.95 per vote in subsidy money. Now the parties all have to adjust and ratchet up their efforts to get their supporters to donate. The Conservatives have a leg up on the competition. That's why their attempt to change the rules at this point, without changing them to again allow donations larger than $1000, is a transparent attempt to gain an advantage over the other parties by breaking their wallets. It's not about saving the federal government some money. $27 million is a piddling sum compared to (for example) the amount lost when the GST was cut by a single percentage point.
  8. I live in Kamloops BC and this place is full of fucking rubes. I don't understand why Harper is so popular out here, but I've noticed a demonstrable lack of knowledge of our political system on the part of the locals complaining about the coalition. No, you missed my point, AGAIN. The Conservatives have a minority of the seats in House. The government governs at the pleasure of the House. This means that all this time, this past two years, the opposition, by not working together, has been allowing Harper to govern. They could have withdrawn that consent and installed another government at any time by teaming up. Because there are more MPs in the House who are NOT Conservative than there are Conservatives, and that's pretty much the dividing line between the parties - the Liberals, NDP, Bloc and Greens can all be considered, and would describe themselves as, at least somewhat "progressive." The Conservatives are the opposite. It wouldn't hurt the Tories the most, they have other funds to rely on. That's like saying taxes are a bigger burden on the wealthy because they have to pay more of them. Yeah, the other parties are going to have to build up a successful organization to raise donations, but that's not the point - this is about one party trying to change the rules to hit all their competitors where it hurts. And if there were no public subsidies for votes, it would make sense to let individuals, corporations and unions donate more than $1000 a year, like they used to be - wouldn't it? Remember these new campaign financing rules are less than a decade old. Finally, as for tightening our belts, I haven't had to yet, so I really don't know what you're talking about.
  9. If socialism is a failed economic system (what is socialism anyway?), then what is laissez-faire capitalism? Removing a measly 27 mil of subsidies isn't going to do squat. There are lots of other subsidies that could have been eliminated, like to big business, but clearly Harper wasn't going to propose that. Let's look at why these subsidies for political parties exist in the first place. They were a quid-pro-quo for banning large individual (usually corporate or union) donations. The Conservatives, having inherited the mass-movement infrastructure of the Reform party, win the donation race handily, while the Liberals, who always relied on large donations, are having much more difficulty adjusting to the new rules and are nearly broke. The NDP is in better shape but they, too, miss large union donations, ditto for the Bloc. So when the Conservatives propose eliminating these subsidies without returning to the old rules that allowed large donations, it's a pretty clear attack on every party but their own. Harper thought, "Hey, let's kick the other parties while they're down; they haven't teamed up against us so far so we'll keep pushing the envelope." Lesson learned? There's no doubt all the rubes out here, in all of Western Canada, are furious about the coalition. But they all voted Conservative in the first place. I don't know one Liberal or NDP supporter who, even if they aren't nuts about their party's coalition partner, doesn't want Harper out at all costs and doesn't want their party to be in the government. The only people who complain about the Conservatives being ousted are Conservatives, and of course they're upset. Nobody explained to them that they did not actually win the election. All of this "now the people must make their voice heard" crap is just stupid; we just did make our voices heard, in an election which returned fewer Conservative MPs than non-Conservatives.
  10. Your right, it's Canada, where your ability to govern depends on maintaining the confidence of the House. That is the essence of parliamentary democracy. If you don't have a majority of the seats, even if you are the largest party, even if you got more votes than any other single party in an election, you had better hope everyone else doesn't gang up on you because if they do you're out of power. That is how Canadian democracy works. How can 38% of the vote be considered a "mandate" for anything? Nobody gets "mandates" from elections in Canada, that is a colloquialism. Ever heard of Parliamentary supremacy? The government serves at the pleasure of the House, period, and this House isn't going to support a Conservative government. He WAS NOT VOTED IN. This is a pretty simple point that I shouldn't have to explain. We DON'T VOTE FOR PRIME MINISTERS OR GOVERNMENTS, WE VOTE FOR MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT. 143 of the elected MPs support him. 163 support Dion. That means Dion gets to be PM, SIMPLE. AS. THAT. Of course I don't expect him to step down, I expect him to fight to the bitter end and if I were a Conservative I would demand no less. As for the Governor General, she did have the choice to refuse Harper's request to prorogue. Many constitutional experts think it's unconstitutional to prorogue parliament just to avoid defeat in the House - it goes against our constitutional principle that the government only gets to remain the government so long as it maintains the confidence of the House. Jean could have refused and Harper would probably have resigned. She chickened out on being only the second GG in Canadian history to refuse to follow a PM's request. But the GG is not obligated to follow every request, as part of her job is after all to prevent abuse of power. But, in layman's terms, she didn't have the cojones.
  11. Yeah, but acid/mushrooms, while great for adventures, won't kill you. If I'm terminal I'd rather die of a heroin overdose than anything else. Mmmmm, opium...
  12. Not a chance. Barrack Obama doesn't see the central problem of modern society as the private sector - including the family - having too little power and the public sector too much, nor view himself as a class warrior for the private sector. Barrack Obama isn't dedicated to undoing a "liberal and feminst social engineering experiment" being carried out by liberal-dominated media, academics and interest groups. Barrack Obama doesn't think climate change is a lie cooked up in order to impliment a global socialist wealth-redistribution scheme. Harper is reigned in by the realities of governing Canada, and you can see that in the changes he's made to how he presents himself politically as he's gone from Reform MP to the head of an ultra-right-wing lobby group to leader of the opposition to PM - he's been watering himself down. You want to know what Stephen Harper really believes, look at what he said between 1988 and 2000, before he ever conceived he might actually have a shot at becoming PM.
  13. Oh come off it. The Conservatives don't accept the reality of climate change, all the other parties do. The Conservatives want to "get tough on crime," none of the other parties accept that approach. The other parties are all pro gay rights, the Conservatives are not. The other parties want to stimulate the economy in keeping with Keynesian economics, the Conservatives do not. The other parties want to move towards drug decriminalization and harm reduction, the Conservatives do not. The other parties support universal day care, the Conservatives say that's "anti-family." The Conservatives are extremely anti-union, the other parties are not. The Conservatives axed the court challenges program and the law reform commission and gutted Status of Women Canada - all the other parties will be glad to restore these. The Conservatives want to keep us in Afghanistan indefinitely - the other parties at least want a timetable for withdrawal. On economics, crime and justice, drugs, gay rights, the role of the family and the state, health care, the environment, foreign policy, the Conservatives are completely on the other side of the line as the other parties. It's a pretty clear split. And the Bloc are a very progressive, downright leftist, union-backed party. Yes, there are differences, often great, between the parties to the left of the Conservatives, but they all agree Harper is taking the country in the completely wrong direction. I was referring to MPs in the House, who get to decide who forms our government. The population elects MPs, it's the makeup of the House that determines who governs. That's not why coalitions are ever formed. Coalitions are formed when parties decide they have more in common with each other than with the other parties and realize they can actually achieve their common objectives by working together and forming the government. And yes, these parties do have common objectives that are diametrically opposed to Harper's. I wish I could believe that, but I'm not willing to give them that credit. Besides, they should grab power if they can, that's how the system works. Don't think for a second that any other party in a similar position would behave any differently. There is every reason for Stephen Harper to be removed from power, the man is a threat to everything progressive about Canada. I'm far more scared of him than I am of the Bloc. He is a conservative ideologue to the core and the proposals we saw him try to ram through last week after getting an increased minority make me shudder even more at what he would do if he ever got a majority. He is the problem. He is the enemy. Destroy him utterly at any cost. Heck, do people even remember what this guy was all about six years ago when he became the Canadian Alliance's leader - or even 15 years ago when he was a Reform Party MP? More private health care, more cozying up to the US, no same-sex marriage, no strikes allowed, further limit immigration, FLAT TAX RATE? Harper fundamentally believes the federal government has too much power with all its money and that the only way the government can play a positive role in people's lives is by cutting their taxes, enforcing the law with an iron fist and fighting wars abroad. That's why his government has eliminated the huge surplus that existed when he took power, surpluses that were expected to keep coming if the Liberals remained in power - to curtail the federal government's spending power. That's completely out of line with what the other parties, with the exception of the Bloc, believe. Harper also opposes what he describes as social engineering in favour of "liberalism and feminism" on the part of liberal-dominated institutions like academia and the media. Remember this one? "Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it."
  14. Except you can pretty much draw a line separating the Conservatives on one side and the Liberals, NDP, Bloc and Greens on the other, on almost every issue. And you don't vote for leaders, you vote for MPs. More anti-Conservatives than Conservatives means the Conservatives shouldn't expect to get to govern. I've been wanting this for the last two years. I don't get how people can find this audacious at all. This is fucking politics, you play to win and if you can team up and your side has more seats than the other, why the heck wouldn't/shouldn't you.
  15. DID YOU KNOW: The government of Sweden is a coalition of centrist and right-wing parties that is led by the Moderate Party with 97 seats - even though the Social Democratic Party has the most seats in the riksdag (130 seats). Undemocratic, or normal coalition government?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.