I believe that all people are equal, and the only thing that differentiates them are their actions. I can’t imagine myself ever changing that belief.
In the same sense Stephen Harper has many beliefs that are contrary to my own. That’s fine, he’s entitled to have them, but now he’s trying to hide them from Canadians so that he can obtain power, and if he were to obtain a majority there would be nothing we could do to stop him.
As I’m sure you are aware, there is an old speech now circulating that drives my point home flush. Here is the original; I’ve clipped some of the “highlights” if you can call them that, just to share with you.
This, by far, is my absolute personal favorite. It’s so perfect in describing the current Conservative party.
But even when parties come back, they're not really new. They're just an older party re-appearing under a different name and different circumstances.
But the Reform party only exists federally. It doesn't exist at the provincial level here in Canada. It really exists only because Mr. Manning is pursuing the position of prime minister. It doesn't have a broader political mandate than that.
Replace “Manning” with “Harper” and “Reform” with “Conservative” and we’ve got ourselves a current statement.
Your country (The United States) and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world.
if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians.
Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it.
In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance.
The NDP is kind of proof that the Devil lives and interferes in the affairs of men.
It's (The Liberal Party) put sexual orientation in the Human Rights Act and will let the courts do the rest.
The leadership of the Conservative party was running the largest deficits in Canadian history.
It (The Reform Party) also has some Buchananist (Pat Buchanan) tendencies.
It's (The Reform Party) also the most conservative socially.
Last year, when we had the Liberal government putting the protection of sexual orientation in our Human Rights Act, the Reform Party was opposed to that.
They're (The Atlantic Provinces) weak economically. They have very grim prospects if Quebec separates.
The Reform party is very much a modern manifestation of the Republican movement.
Its (The NDP’s) main concern, of course, is simply the left-wing agenda to basically disintegrate our society in all kinds of spectrums.
The establishment came down with a constitutional package which they put to a national referendum. The package included distinct society status for Quebec and some other changes, including some that would just horrify you, putting universal Medicare in our constitution, and feminist rights, and a whole bunch of other things.
I know what he's saying there, those lousy feminists, always wanting rights! Rights are over rated anyway, who needs them?
/sarcasm
Posts
2 comments:
To each their own.
Quite frankly, I find Martin's reversals far more troubling than Harper's. Harper did not have the luxury of seeing the country at that point in time and evidently when one lacks experience one makes ill-informed statements.
Martin, like Harper, has reversed himself on most issues. I don't mind someone doing so, but Martin is not being honest about his former positions. I've even heard him blatantly lie on Cross-Country Checkup when he said he did not raise a cheer for Jean Chretien following the Gomery testimony. I guess we'll get a Harper response today.
I think the beginning and end parts are the most controversial. His comments about the Conservatives running a large deficit and the Reform Party being largely a socially conservative party is largely just saying what happened. His comments on bilingualism while accurate in the sense there isn't a particularly large Francophone population outside Quebec and the immediate adjacent areas and likewise not a large Anglophone population outside Montreal in Quebec, I don't think this should be used as an excuse to scrap bilingualism. I see nothing wrong with enshring feminist rights or sexual orientation in the human rights code. In fact I fully support it and I am glad the former Progressive Conservatives supported it while this is one of the reasons I want nothing to do with the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives. As for enshrining universal medicare in the constitution, I in favour of enshrining it in terms of making it illegal to deny anyone health care due to inability to pay, but I am not in favour of enshring a government monopoly in the constitution. I think a heavily regulated parallel private system as exists in Europe should be permitted. I also would favour of small user fee for doctors visits to discourage overuse of the system, but like France for primary care or Britain for prescription drugs, there needs to be a mechanism to ensure those below the poverty line are exempt from user charges and user charges should be small, no more than $10. He is right though that those ideas would likely horrify most Americans, especially Republican voters, but I don't believe this is the path we should follow.l
Post a Comment