Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gulo who wrote (2459)	4/15/2003 12:18:10 PM
From: SofaSpud	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 37170

Your point about direct democracy is a good one. That's something that people who don't want to buy the whole package should keep in mind. The Alliance policy on initiative and referendum was abysmally conveyed during the last election (thanks for that, Stock). I'm very keen on it -- in part because I did some of the early research on it for them back in the 80s. The origin of the party really was the fact that people couldn't accept the whole "package" that was being forced upon them -- first by Trudeau, then by Mulroney. The policy on direct democracy recognizes that it will always be thus, including if the Alliance were ever to win. The most important thing is to try to re-engage citizens, let them get back some sense of influence over government. The way we're going now, there's no point in even paying attention to politics, no point to voting, no reason not to cheat on your taxes ... If you're not a Liberal, you're disenfranchised. That's ultimately fatal to the polity.

To: Gulo who wrote (2459)	4/15/2003 12:21:35 PM
From: marcos	Respond to of 37170

That's the term, 'social conservatives', couldn't think of it recently .... it's always amazed me that people who espouse individual human rights in economic matters could advocate state control of personal life .... so inconsistent - seems to me like if you don't want government's hand dipping into your pocket, you sure as hell shouldn't want it clasping your privates The package trap is true of all parties, of course, you're right, it's the system, and without parties there would be ungovernable chaos, so about all anybody can do about it is to get inside one and hoot and holler, i guess ... but so many of the conceptions come across as absurd ... like the business of seeing positions on each issue as being placed on a linear spectrum, then weighted down heavily with political connotations to the 'left' and 'right' of placing .... two-dimensional, one-dimensional in the case of too many players This looks like the speech of Harper that i was talking about - canadianalliance.ca ... there is legitimate criticism of Chrétien here, and some not so legitimate, for instance H's intentional ignoring of the distinction between the effort against terrorism, which we are quite rightly in, and the unilateral US war on Iraq, which we are quite rightly not in, the DC neocons having stifled all discussion on the matter .... but mainly, the only reason H puts forward for marching to Washington's tune is that 'they are our friends' .... well bullshit, maybe he should have a chat with his paisano Pettigrew about that .... here again he is missing a crucial distinction, between the people of the US and the regime in power there Also, SH uses in that speech the noun/adjective 'American' in a manner inconsistent with its meaning, which is as noun 'one with a claim to membership in these Américas', and as adjective 'of and pertaining to these Américas' ..... if anyone here was to run into him and straighten him out on that, you can tell him for me, you're welcome in advance

To: Gulo who wrote (2459)	4/15/2003 9:26:07 PM
From: Ally	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37170

Let's simply call a spade a spade... Alliance is merely a chapter of Bush's Republican party in Canada, ready to serve master Bush'ss every word and whim. How can we tell so? Just listen to all of Harper's speeches throughout the Iraq debate in Parliament. Not once had he indicated Canada's sovereign right not to participate in the attack on Iraq. Harper is more concerned with pleasing U.S. than supporting Canada's conscience on the war. I'm glad Canada is not participating in the Bush doctrine. The fighting is hardly over before the Bush administration heats up confrontational rhetoric on Syria. If this is statesman-like behaviour, I too could be the president of the United States. There is no need to openly embarrass a country and push it in a corner of defiance. Send Powell to tell Syria privately to behave. That's all that's needed. Unless of course, one is addicted to war and the killing of innocent civilians with shock and awe bombs. What does Harper think of Syria? I suppose he'll join in the rhetoric if he were Prime Minister.