|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Skyblue
Joined: 02 Mar 2007
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| Great couple of posts there, Skyblue. Where a bouts are ya from? |
From Ontario, living in the southern part of the ROK for the time being.
The election has certainly taken an interesting turn in the past couple of days.
In essence admitting defeat, Iggy keeps talking about forming a government (but not a coalition).
Don't call it a coalition, but it is the same thing. I find this disingenuous on Iggy's part.
So either Harper gets his majority, or we have some serious constitutional wrangling ahead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kimbop
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Skyblue wrote: |
This just seems paranoid. It implies a fear that Federal agents are going to go door-to-door seizing the firearms of all law-abiding citizens in order to exert total social control. That is a dystopian scenario that could only be envisioned in some remote, post-apocalyptic, totalitarian state. And it would probably only be a hardline conservative movement of some persuasion that would thus usurp the rights of its citizens. |
With respect, you have no idea what you are talking about and have no idea which Canadian political party is "usurping" Canadians' rights. Re: gun control, read my quotes again; they were spoken by Liberal Justice mnisters who want to ban ALL guns. I posted the quotes verbatim for your benefit; Google them if you don't believe me.
Conservatives are about fewer rules and regulations, not more, and are closest to the libertarian ideology. Usurp the rights of citizens?? Which party wants to force all Canadians into socialized healthcare, rather than giving them the freedom to hire their own doctor? Which party wants to regulate and bureaucratize gun ownership while systematically banning them? Which party wants to force farmers into the CWB rather than letting them sell to whoever the heck they want? Which parties advocate more self reliance; which parties advocate total government control/coddling? I want the government OUT of my life, and I want the freedom to solve my own problems, indiependant of government. So don't tell me that a "conservative" movement would "usurp" Canadians' rights, as you clearly have no idea what you're talking about! Go read Hayek's 'the road to Serfdom' if you want to understand how your welfare state governments completely strip citizens of their ability to care for themselves. Go visit an Indian reserve in Canada if you want to see what socialism does!
The only way the Conservatives' ideology "usurps" your rights is by outlawing cannabis; another action with which I totally disagree. The point is, Canada's left-wing parties are much more anti-freedom than you feign to understand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoholDiver
Joined: 03 Oct 2009
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's what I was saying, and I got called a know-nothing. I find the LIberals to be not very left-wing, just a party that exists for the sole purpoise to win elections. The PC seem to have a somewhat stable platform.
I am a bit conservative myself but I like how PC gives more autonomy to the provinces, is against recreational cannabis, and is against abortion. Things I believe in.
| Kimbop wrote: |
| Skyblue wrote: |
This just seems paranoid. It implies a fear that Federal agents are going to go door-to-door seizing the firearms of all law-abiding citizens in order to exert total social control. That is a dystopian scenario that could only be envisioned in some remote, post-apocalyptic, totalitarian state. And it would probably only be a hardline conservative movement of some persuasion that would thus usurp the rights of its citizens. |
With respect, you have no idea what you are talking about and have no idea which Canadian political party is "usurping" Canadians' rights. Re: gun control, read my quotes again; they were spoken by Liberal Justice mnisters who want to ban ALL guns. I posted the quotes verbatim for your benefit; Google them if you don't believe me.
Conservatives are about fewer rules and regulations, not more, and are closest to the libertarian ideology. Usurp the rights of citizens?? Which party wants to force all Canadians into socialized healthcare, rather than giving them the freedom to hire their own doctor? Which party wants to regulate and bureaucratize gun ownership while systematically banning them? Which party wants to force farmers into the CWB rather than letting them sell to whoever the heck they want? Which parties advocate more self reliance; which parties advocate total government control/coddling? I want the government OUT of my life, and I want the freedom to solve my own problems, indiependant of government. So don't tell me that a "conservative" movement would "usurp" Canadians' rights, as you clearly have no idea what you're talking about! Go read Hayek's 'the road to Serfdom' if you want to understand how your welfare state governments completely strip citizens of their ability to care for themselves. Go visit an Indian reserve in Canada if you want to see what socialism does!
The only way the Conservatives' ideology "usurps" your rights is by outlawing cannabis; another action with which I totally disagree. The point is, Canada's left-wing parties are much more anti-freedom than you feign to understand. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skyblue
Joined: 02 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kimbop wrote: |
| Which party wants to force all Canadians into socialized healthcare, rather than giving them the freedom to hire their own doctor? |
All of them, as far as I know. It's been that way for decades. Sorry, but national health care is wildly popular in Canada. 
| Kimbop wrote: |
| Which party wants to regulate and bureaucratize gun ownership while systematically banning them? |
When did unregistered gun ownership become a sacred right in Canada?
| Kimbop wrote: |
| Which party wants to force farmers into the CWB rather than letting them sell to whoever the heck they want? |
That's been around since the 1930s and no party has scrapped it. It's funny how farmers despise interference except when it comes in the form of subsidies or trade protectionism.
| Kimbop wrote: |
| So don't tell me that a "conservative" movement would "usurp" Canadians' rights, as you clearly have no idea what you're talking about! Go read Hayek's 'the road to Serfdom' if you want to understand how your welfare state governments completely strip citizens of their ability to care for themselves. |
When I made the comment that it would probably, in some remote hypothetical scenario, be a conservative movement (not the current government) stripping citizens of its rights, I was thinking more of Naomi Wolf's recent work on the rise of fascist movements and the parallels with the recent Republican administration south of the border. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kimbop
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Skyblue wrote: |
| When did unregistered gun ownership become a sacred right in Canada? |
I can tell you when it ceased to become a right: I'd say 1934 was the tipping point. Government at the time promised that they would never confiscate any type of handgun, but of course that changed with bill c-150. Many fools who registered their guns were visited by the stazi in the middle of the night and had their guns seized. Serves the fools right. Moral of the story: 1. government cannot be trusted, and 2. don't register your guns.
| Skyblue wrote: |
| When I made the comment that it would probably, in some remote hypothetical scenario, be a conservative movement (not the current government) stripping citizens of its rights, I was thinking more of Naomi Wolf's recent work on the rise of fascist movements and the parallels with the recent Republican administration south of the border. |
1. How is "the recent Republican administration south of the border" 'fascist'? 2. How is "the recent Republican administration south of the border" -- or any government that allows its citizens to own guns -- even remotely synonymous with a "hypothetical scenario" that would result in citizens' rights being stripped'? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skyblue
Joined: 02 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kimbop wrote: |
| 1. How is "the recent Republican administration south of the border" 'fascist'? |
I only said there are parallels. Specifically, Naomi Wolf points to the creation of secret prisons, the use of torture, the increased surveillance of citizens, and the invocation of the "enemy" to justify such infringements after 9/11. It was with this in mind that I made the comment about a dystopian scenario.
"Freedom" has become an ideologically loaded word without precise meaning. It's rather like Iggy going on about "respect." Are American's any more "free" than Europeans, Canadians, Australians, of Kiwis? For me, basic freedoms include speech, assembly, association, etc. These matter. And even they are within reasonable limits.
Other freedoms -- such as the freedom to smoke in a poorly ventilated restaurant, then drive home drunk, hit my kids, play some Pantera loud enough to wake up everyone on my street, light a huge bonfire in my back yard, and then do some target practice with my Glock -- are less important in my view.
The rhetoric about "guns" and "freedom" is, to me, a strange cultural anachronism imported from the US. I don't mind people owning long guns, but like most Canadians, I think it's only reasonable to restrict their availability. The registry isn't an issue for me. Neither the Libs or Cons are going to score any points with most people on it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| As an Albertan, I'd have no issues with registering a gun. My objection to it would be the bureaucracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kimbop
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Skyblue wrote: |
I only said there are parallels. Specifically, Naomi Wolf points to the creation of secret prisons, the use of torture, the increased surveillance of citizens, and the invocation of the "enemy" to justify such infringements after 9/11. It was with this in mind that I made the comment about a dystopian scenario.
"Freedom" has become an ideologically loaded word without precise meaning. It's rather like Iggy going on about "respect." Are American's any more "free" than Europeans, Canadians, Australians, of Kiwis? For me, basic freedoms include speech, assembly, association, etc. These matter. And even they are within reasonable limits.
Other freedoms -- such as the freedom to smoke in a poorly ventilated restaurant, then drive home drunk, hit my kids, play some Pantera loud enough to wake up everyone on my street, light a huge bonfire in my back yard, and then do some target practice with my Glock -- are less important in my view.
|
Umm, Obama is maintaining and extending the USA's 'secret prisons' & patriot act, etc while increasing war spending, and he is not a republican, last I checked. So don't listen to Naomi Wolf. You are correct in that ideologically the gop is more supportive of these measures; unfortunately due to reality and public support the dems must also support them.
"freedom" is balanced with the need for public safety, which you already have. You also mention free speech: Answer me this: which politician would stand up for this guy:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/offbeat/story/2011/04/21/bc-zestys-comedian-lesbian-insults.html
Answer: a conservative. Canada's Bill Oreilly and other conservatives are up in arms, while lesbian feminists have their "freedom" to be not sworn at. Jack Layton absolutely loves human rights tribunals.
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/fined-for-being-unfunny/914035361001
I repeat: Canada is a very 'left' socialist country and is not free.
Nowhere in Canada can a law-abiding responsible person sip wine in the park, or drive a motorcycle without a helmet, holster a gun in the forest, or hire his own doctor, or print mohammed cartoons. And now we can't swear at people in a bar.
| Skyblue wrote: |
The rhetoric about "guns" and "freedom" is, to me, a strange cultural anachronism imported from the US. I don't mind people owning long guns, but like most Canadians, I think it's only reasonable to restrict their availability. The registry isn't an issue for me. Neither the Libs or Cons are going to score any points with most people on it. |
With respect, you are mistaken. Outside of Toronto or Vancouver, virtually every farmer or rural dweller has owned guns for generations. Abolishing the gun registry is the base of Harper's rural support, and this seriously firghtens the G&M, Star, & CBC:
http://www.google.ca/#q=canada+gun+registry&bih=657&biw=1212&fp=4e13293d78f9f123&hl=en&rlz=1R2ADFA_enCA410&safe=off&tbm=nws
Most rural ridings on this map are blue explicitly because of the gun registry. They have fewer doctors, fewer services, are generally poorer, but they tend to be more self-sufficient and simply want government to have less control:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/map/2008/fullscreen.html#
Global broke it down clearly: several Lib & NDP MPs reneged on their promises to scrap the registry, and the outcomes in several ridings will be much closer because of it:
http://www.globalsaskatoon.com/decisioncanada/this+registry+swaying+votes+owners+ridings/4643819/story.html
the Cons ae scoring huuuge due to their opposition to the registry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kimbop
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| As an Albertan, I'd have no issues with registering a gun. My objection to it would be the bureaucracy. |
gun registry = bureaucracy to the tune of $2 billion+. The two are inseperably linked. Worst of all the gun registry has had zero effect on curbing gun crimes, which arguably would have fallen regardless.
1892- permits for pistols.
1920- permit for all guns.
1934- register all handguns.
1951- register all automatics.
1969- ban some automatics and many hand & long guns.
1977- ban ALL automatics and more hand & long guns.
1991- ban some semi-autos, and more hand & long guns.
1995- Absolutely every single gun becomes property of the government, which they keep on a list, and we pay for and get to keep on 'loan'.
2005- Paul Martin campaigned on a platform to ban ALL handguns.
Trust me; total deweaponizing of Canada is coming. We must do everything we can to keep socialist left-wingers from power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Neither Canada nor the US is free by libertarian standards.
Back to the election the NDP has risen sharply in the polls. Especially in Quebec by stealing votes from the Bloc. In the rest of Canada they are taking votes away from the Liberals.
The vote spliting between the NDP and Liberals could mean a Conservative majority. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoholDiver
Joined: 03 Oct 2009
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 1:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe the really liberal people realized that the NDP are more liberal than the Liberals and the Bloc ceased to be relevant after 1996.
| catman wrote: |
Neither Canada nor the US is free by libertarian standards.
Back to the election the NDP has risen sharply in the polls. Especially in Quebec by stealing votes from the Bloc. In the rest of Canada they are taking votes away from the Liberals.
The vote spliting between the NDP and Liberals could mean a Conservative majority. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skyblue
Joined: 02 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What should Iggy do when he goes down in flames?
I hope he sticks around. Walking away would just confirm the suspicion that he came back looking to score a quick political victory. Sticking it out would show otherwise.
Voters need time to get comfortable with candidates. It took Harper a while. It took Dalton McGuinty a while to overcome the Harper-style attack ads coming from Mike Harris' conservative camp.
Quitting after this election would hurt the Libs going forward. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoholDiver
Joined: 03 Oct 2009
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2011 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know any of the other candidates for Liberal Leadership. I think the next person must be a Quebecois.
Is there anyone good in there? If so, Iggy should resign. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ESL Milk "Everyday
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2011 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Part of me honestly thinks that if Iggy had different eyebrows, he'd be doing fine right now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2011 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/05/02/cv-election-main.html#
| Quote: |
Harper wins majority, CBC projects
Canadian voters have delivered Conservative Leader Stephen Harper his first majority government after five years of governing in a minority situation, CBC News projects. Meanwhile NDP Leader Jack Layton was set to become Official Opposition leader. |
| Quote: |
| Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff trailed in his Toronto riding, based on early reports that also showed several prominent Toronto Liberals behind NDP or Tory candidates |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
