Sign in to follow this  
Sunday21

Canadian election

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

 @scottyg Reminds me of the ‘who would you throw out of the boat’ questions that people used to ask as under graduates. I am not in favour of throwing people out of boats! 

I don't like throwing people out of boats either. However, that scenario you posed is in no way related to the question I did. If you don't want to answer the question that's fine, even though what you think is now quite obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think it depends on what you qualify as such.  For some the answers would be obvious...and I think that's what you are trying to make them out to be...however...I will use it to illustrate a different point...that viewpoints do not always align with each other and sometimes what we may view as a way to define it is not how others may see it.

To Godwin the thread...

1.  Hitler mostly utilized speeches in public.  It was not even he who came up with what the Nazi's called the Final Solution, it was his underling.  As such, who was the greater evil, Hitler or the Germans who followed him?

2.  In the 1940s after the attack on Pearl Harbor the US sent thousands of Japanese Americans to what were basically concentration camps.  Now, it was with the threat of physical harm for the Japanese, as well as the fear of them doing harm to the US that caused such a travesty of rights to occur.  Some died in these camps.  Others remember.  Today, too many forget while remember the even greater horrors of the Death Camps of Germany, but of all the crimes against it's citizens of the 20th century, the threat to it's own citizens (the Japanese Americans) and imprisoning them because of it is perhaps the greatest.  Which is the greater crime then, the Japanese that the US fought in the Pacific and actually killed, or those Japanese Americans that they deprived their rights from and imprisoned in their own nation?

3.  In the 1960s and 70s the Vietnamese were trying to free themselves from a Tyrannical system of Colonization.  They were treated as third class citizens in their own home nation.  Many rebelled against this system.  Into this the US entered. They fought on the side of their colonial masters.  Some of the Vietnamese allied with the US, others fought against it.  The Vietnamese sought aid, and as the US was siding with those they opposed, they turned to other sources, one of which were the Communist who were more than happy to use them to fight a proxy hot war with the US.  The US killed many of these Vietnamese (and they killed many of the US soldiers and civilians that were sent there).

Which then is worse...#1, #2, or #3. 

I know it was made out to be clear cut, but sometimes things are not quite as clear cut as we make them.  In the first instance, even without doing the acts himself, WORDS, especially in politics and government have ramifications.  Words CAN be the instigator of other events, even if the one who stated them is not the one who actually executes the brutality they cause.  In the second, only those oblivious to the deprivation of rights (of which this thread is talking about, the preservation of the US constitutional rights vs. the rights granted in other nations) would say that such imprisonment and deprivation of rights (even though shelter and food was provided as such) is a good thing.  Finally, is War that we enter voluntarily a good choice in all instances?  Many would rank them as horrible with #1 being the worst, #2 being the second worst, and some even saying #3 was not a bad thing but something that was necessary (
from some points of view). 

I think the United States guarantees (or should guarantee, though that is being eroded to a degree slowly) certain rights as given in the first few amendments of the Constitution.  This is one thing that makes the United States unique among nations.  That does not mean all others need to agree with the United States, nor that their cultures see situations in the same way.  There could be multiple ways to answer your questions beyond what one may consider the obvious from another's point of view.  For those who want the rights granted by the US, they can move to the US.  For those who want the rights of Canada, they can move to Canada.  They may need to prove that they are worthy of such a thing (as so to attain citizenship, or at least the right to live and work in the chosen nation) but the world is a place full of different cultures and viewpoints.  If one wants to move to the UK, or the Japan, or to China even, let them do so if it aligns with their personal ideas and views.  It should be no surprise that there are different views regarding freedom, the right to freedom, the right to live as one wants, and how that is defined, in different nations and cultures.

The problem with your response is it's length. It is that you, and sunday, and the majority of people on the left today are reading too much into things. You are making it more complicated than it needs to be. All 3 things are bad to do, but one cannot equate calling someone a name to punching them in the face - the latter is worse. The actions of those who followed Hitler and killed innocent people were worse than the words that he said in some speech. One cannot abdicate their own agency. You cannot say that his words made them do those things...that is the plan of the adversary. We are responsible for ourselves. (Hitler also killed many people himself though, including many other atrocities, so overall he is definitely the worse individual in my opinion)

Too many people today have no foundation to stand upon when it comes to their beliefs, and are too mentally weak to tolerate a difference of opinion. Plus, they are full of pride, and so they must keep pushing forward on their position whatever the cost. So, they restrict the speech of others to make themselves feel safer inside their own minds, knowing full well that the reason they still feel so insecure is because their position is not rational...which is why so many on the left are also so angry today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@scottyg Wops I ment @JohnsonJones I am glad you are posting - there are things that should be uncovered - but as we uncover such things, it should not be one sided.  Like the concept of justice - it must be politically blind and not a political weapon.  Treating insiders different than outsiders particularly in courts of law; which I believe is the first sign of corruption from a secret combination.   I wanted to respond to parts of your post:

Quote

1.  Hitler mostly utilized speeches in public.  It was not even he who came up with what the Nazi's called the Final Solution, it was his underling.  As such, who was the greater evil, Hitler or the Germans who followed him?

I think you have missed the greater problem.  I believe the greater problem is that Hitler and the German government (bureaucracy) were putting on a public persona that was a cover up and lie to many "things" that were kept secret and hidden from the public.  Hitler was elected into power without a majority of voters and from those that did elect him - the fast majority did not know the extent and purposes of what was going on.

Quote

2.  In the 1940s after the attack on Pearl Harbor the US sent thousands of Japanese Americans to what were basically concentration camps.  Now, it was with the threat of physical harm for the Japanese, as well as the fear of them doing harm to the US that caused such a travesty of rights to occur.  Some died in these camps.  Others remember.  Today, too many forget while remember the even greater horrors of the Death Camps of Germany, but of all the crimes against it's citizens of the 20th century, the threat to it's own citizens (the Japanese Americans) and imprisoning them because of it is perhaps the greatest.  Which is the greater crime then, the Japanese that the US fought in the Pacific and actually killed, or those Japanese Americans that they deprived their rights from and imprisoned in their own nation?

Without a doubt there were mistakes made leading up to WWII.  One of the greatest failure was the internment of (some - not even the majority of) Japanese.  However, a lot is taken out of context.  The Japanese were misunderstood.  Having worked in Japan - life (culture) there is very different than here in the USA - I can give many personal examples.  It is very easy to exploit such differences.  But I would say this about Japanese internment - #1.  It was done by a liberal, left wing administration.  It seems to me that most often when this is brought up - it is mostly by someone with liberal leaning in an appearance of conservatives as though they were the only ones at fault.  #2. The president was FDR - who was the grandson of one of the most powerful drug lords in the most powerful international opiate cartel to have ever existed - that had strong political connections in the USA and Europe.  This drug cartel was the single greatest cause of the fall of Qing Dynasty which led to the rise of Communism in China.  The reason I point this out is because a lot of information that is finding its way into scrutiny is somewhat filtered and only a tip of an iceberg.  But I am concerned that so many do not understand the differences between the internment camps and the WWII concentration camps.  There were some similarities but there is no more logic to the statement that the internment camps were basically concentration camps than to say you are basically a Nazi Storm trooper because you have more similarities to one of them than you have with an amoeba. 

Quote

3.  In the 1960s and 70s the Vietnamese were trying to free themselves from a Tyrannical system of Colonization.  They were treated as third class citizens in their own home nation.  Many rebelled against this system.  Into this the US entered. They fought on the side of their colonial masters.  Some of the Vietnamese allied with the US, others fought against it.  The Vietnamese sought aid, and as the US was siding with those they opposed, they turned to other sources, one of which were the Communist who were more than happy to use them to fight a proxy hot war with the US.  The US killed many of these Vietnamese (and they killed many of the US soldiers and civilians that were sent there).

Vietnam was a great mistake - but the reason is still not well understood in historical context.   To understand - one must know about the Tyrannical system in Brazil - not a government system but an international effort of a small cartel to control the rubber industry.  To make this short - Brazil was the only place in the world were rubber could be harvested.  But then a French group smuggled some rubber tree plants out of Brazil and took them to Vietnam.  The war in Vietnam was not about Vietnamese fighting against colonialism – It was about Communists China getting control of a piece of the rubber market.  But the rubber market is not as important now as it once was and with the decline in the rubber market – that market has fallen apart and is no longer under cartel control but more subject to capital market operations.

It is my opinion that the Book of Mormon warns us about the wars and violence that will be created in our time by secret combinations seeking power over financial markets, institutions of law (judges and lawyers), countries, and people in general.  I do not believe the problem is about citizens wearing MEGA hats or other citizens hating MEGA hats - they are just the pons - the problem is in the power brokers (liberal and conservatives) doing unusual and unpeaceful things directed towards limiting liberties - especially free speech and the right to bear arms by citizens.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Traveler said:

@scottyg  I am glad you are posting - there are things that should be uncovered - but as we uncover such things, it should not be one sided.  Like the concept of justice - it must be politically blind and not a political weapon.  Treating insiders different than outsiders particularly in courts of law; which I believe is the first sign of corruption from a secret combination.   I wanted to respond to parts of your post:

Quote

1.  Hitler mostly utilized speeches in public.  It was not even he who came up with what the Nazi's called the Final Solution, it was his underling.  As such, who was the greater evil, Hitler or the Germans who followed him?

I think you have missed the greater problem.  I believe the greater problem is that Hitler and the German government (bureaucracy) were putting on a public persona that was a cover up and lie to many "things" that were kept secret and hidden from the public.  Hitler was elected into power without a majority of voters and from those that did elect him - the fast majority did not know the extent and purposes of what was going on.

Quote

2.  In the 1940s after the attack on Pearl Harbor the US sent thousands of Japanese Americans to what were basically concentration camps.  Now, it was with the threat of physical harm for the Japanese, as well as the fear of them doing harm to the US that caused such a travesty of rights to occur.  Some died in these camps.  Others remember.  Today, too many forget while remember the even greater horrors of the Death Camps of Germany, but of all the crimes against it's citizens of the 20th century, the threat to it's own citizens (the Japanese Americans) and imprisoning them because of it is perhaps the greatest.  Which is the greater crime then, the Japanese that the US fought in the Pacific and actually killed, or those Japanese Americans that they deprived their rights from and imprisoned in their own nation?

Without a doubt there were mistakes made leading up to WWII.  One of the greatest failure was the internment of (some - not even the majority of) Japanese.  However, a lot is taken out of context.  The Japanese were misunderstood.  Having worked in Japan - life (culture) there is very different than here in the USA - I can give many personal examples.  It is very easy to exploit such differences.  But I would say this about Japanese internment - #1.  It was done by a liberal, left wing administration.  It seems to me that most often when this is brought up - it is mostly by someone with liberal leaning in an appearance of conservatives as though they were the only ones at fault.  #2. The president was FDR - who was the grandson of one of the most powerful drug lords in the most powerful international opiate cartel to have ever existed - that had strong political connections in the USA and Europe.  This drug cartel was the single greatest cause of the fall of Qing Dynasty which led to the rise of Communism in China.  The reason I point this out is because a lot of information that is finding its way into scrutiny is somewhat filtered and only a tip of an iceberg.  But I am concerned that so many do not understand the differences between the internment camps and the WWII concentration camps.  There were some similarities but there is no more logic to the statement that the internment camps were basically concentration camps than to say you are basically a Nazi Storm trooper because you have more similarities to one of them than you have with an amoeba. 

Quote

3.  In the 1960s and 70s the Vietnamese were trying to free themselves from a Tyrannical system of Colonization.  They were treated as third class citizens in their own home nation.  Many rebelled against this system.  Into this the US entered. They fought on the side of their colonial masters.  Some of the Vietnamese allied with the US, others fought against it.  The Vietnamese sought aid, and as the US was siding with those they opposed, they turned to other sources, one of which were the Communist who were more than happy to use them to fight a proxy hot war with the US.  The US killed many of these Vietnamese (and they killed many of the US soldiers and civilians that were sent there).

Vietnam was a great mistake - but the reason is still not well understood in historical context.   To understand - one must know about the Tyrannical system in Brazil - not a government system but an international effort of a small cartel to control the rubber industry.  To make this short - Brazil was the only place in the world were rubber could be harvested.  But then a French group smuggled some rubber tree plants out of Brazil and took them to Vietnam.  The war in Vietnam was not about Vietnamese fighting against colonialism – It was about Communists China getting control of a piece of the rubber market.  But the rubber market is not as important now as it once was and with the decline in the rubber market – that market has fallen apart and is no longer under cartel control but more subject to capital market operations.

It is my opinion that the Book of Mormon warns us about the wars and violence that will be created in our time by secret combinations seeking power over financial markets, institutions of law (judges and lawyers), countries, and people in general.  I do not believe the problem is about citizens wearing MEGA hats or other citizens hating MEGA hats - they are just the pons - the problem is in the power brokers (liberal and conservatives) doing unusual and unpeaceful things directed towards limiting liberties - especially free speech and the right to bear arms by citizens.

 

The Traveler

Very true, and I agree with the one-sidedness, which is why I like all laws to apply to everyone equally. If they only apply to certain people (a "disadvantaged group") then they are actually creating the very problem they are purported to solve. A rising tide should lift all ships. I agree as well with your view of the Book of Mormon.

Also, the post you are quoting from is not mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scottyg said:

Very true, and I agree with the one-sidedness, which is why I like all laws to apply to everyone equally. If they only apply to certain people (a "disadvantaged group") then they are actually creating the very problem they are purported to solve. A rising tide should lift all ships. I agree as well with your view of the Book of Mormon.

Also, the post you are quoting from is not mine.

Sorry - I was quoting @JohnsonJones

Thanks

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey @Sunday21 Sorry, I'm so late to the party. I haven't logged on in months as I've been very busy and didn't seem to be being missed :)

I have a severe dislike of Trudeau and I can't believe (okay, I can, but don't want to) that the party is supporting him. He should have been turfed when SNC Lavalin broke. Now he's had at least two major ethics breeches and his Black Face business also shows a lack of judgement (I don't actually see it as racist, though I find it absurd that as a leftist he gets a pass, but we know if Scheer or Bernier were found with Black Face it would be blown up and all the media would bring out the pitch forks and start salivating). Sadly, the Canadian media has been bought off by Trudeau so it's even worse than the usual leftist news slant because they're getting paid by the Liberal Govt. to continue on as a failed business model.

Elizabeth May and Singh strike me as full of empty promises and would be an unmitigated disaster to even surpass the joke of a government we've endured the last four years.

I haven't seen the ad you refer to about the Conservatives and will likely have to check it out, but honestly they are the party I'll  most likely vote for. I actually could find myself supporting the PPC most of all, but don't see them overthrowing the liberals so I would strategically vote conservative for the best chance of throwing out Trudeau.

Edited by SpiritDragon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2019 at 12:20 PM, anatess2 said:

Go for the guy with a good economic platform.  You're gonna need it.

You mean we can't just spend on everything and let the budget balance itself? (Just in case it's lost in translation this is what Trudeau has actually said, that the budget will balance itself.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sunday21 Okay, I'm a little bit more caught up on this. First of all, I have to say I don't actually see the pulled Conservative ad as racist. I find it racist that it is considered racist. I see a man walking into Canada (assumed to be illegally crossing and escorted by the RCMP into the lap of luxury on the tax payers dollar once over the 49th parallel). Everyone has a skin colour, be it white, black, brown, red, yellow or some mixture of all of the above. What colour would be acceptable for the ad? To me the skin colour is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that we've had a run on the Canadian border and some one needs to address it. I'm all for good people immigrating through the proper channels, but this walking across and then living off the system while I bust my butt and make sacrifices to keep my family afloat while paying into this system that doesn't pay me back except for the rare medical visit - it's aggravating to say the least.

Quote

Far from fleeing Trump, a common migrant route was to fly from Lagos, Nigeria, to New York City (a flight that usually costs about $2,000), then on to Plattsburgh, N.Y., where human smugglers would transport them to Roxham Road along the border with rural Quebec. From there, the migrants would enter Canada illegally, get arrested, make asylum claims, then go on to Montreal or Toronto where they would start receiving tax-payer funded social welfare benefits.

Maybe it's just the Alberta boy in me, but it seems like we don't need illegal mooches getting a free ride while continually being told our taxes need to go up to pay for all of the social programs (read indoctrination centres/leftist propaganda machines). Trudeau senior created serious East/west tension which had started to subside somewhat, but Trudeau junior has western Canada wanting to separate again because of his gross incompetence and lack of ethics and the fact that the east outnumbers the west and can continue to vote for us to make transfer payments to the have not provinces. This while trying to destroy our fossil fuel and agriculture based economy so that we'll all be a third world mess soon enough. I also see the opposite side of the empty country thing, I suppose. It seems to me that less labour would mean that jobs might actually have to pay fair market value, not because of minimum wage increases, but because to remain competitive and get the best people wages would need to go up, even for lower tier jobs, people would actually need to work instead of just show up some of the time knowing it's hard to fire them. I mean, I get that there is a balance point and we can't just have a dearth of viable employees leading to not being able to run business, but I think we're too far the other way where people seeking labour is outpacing opportunities, so why add more people looking for work to the mix (or worse, more people getting a free ride while the rest of us work to provide for them as well)? I also can't help but see the irony in the leftist policies that have left families broken and requiring both parents to be in the workforce while viewing children as an optional burden leading to the situation where we don't have enough native born citizens to carry our own economy. The solution they put forward is to accelerate the problem by bringing over an ever-increasing stream of newcomers, but not addressing the issue that our own citizens either can't afford to raise children, are too busy working to make ends meet, or too elitist to be bothered with such menial tasks as chasing babies. What we need is a strong reset of family values, wages that allow for single income families to more viable and families with lots of kids raised with good values instead of an ongoing influx of people who fundamentally disagree with our values but will gladly take advantage of our stupidity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SpiritDragon, you appear to be missing @Sunday21's whole point, which is that the fact that they are racial minorities makes the ad racist on its face. Remember, Sunday21 does not particuarly value free speech. She's perfectly happy to curtail free speech in favor of forcing people to be "polite", where "politeness" is defined by the government. From what I can see, she literally does not understand the preeminent value Americans place on free speech.

In my opinion, Canada is suffering under a slavery mentality, not unlike China. They believe that the government has to tell us what to think, else how will we know? I hope that Sunday21 and other Canadians will realize the fundamental value of truly free speech before Canada becomes just another European state. But frankly, I'm not holding my breath. We spilled blood to secure these freedoms; Canada currently lives in America's rain shadow, and feels it has no need of such brutal ideas as letting people actually speak their minds. I assume if we had been raised north of the border around the eastern population centers, we would probably hold similar ideas, so I'm not condemning individuals. But a healthy love of liberty is definitely lacking.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Vort I can appreciate your take on this. I don't feel that I have missed @Sunday21's point as much as I was responding to her OP asking fellow Canadians what we think of the upcoming election. I had already shared my likely voting intentions and expressed that I hadn't seen the racist Conservative ad yet and would need to look into it. After looking into it, I shared these thoughts to further articulate my position which I realize is very different from hers. The province of Alberta is typically the most conservative in the country and as far as Albertans go, I tend to be even more conservative still. I'm not surprised that my opinion differs from most Canadians, but I do struggle to understand how one in three Canadians in the polls can still back Trudeau. We do have many Canadians that are greatly concerned about freedom of speech, but unfortunately not enough voters realize the importance of it, seeming to think it's already protected while turning a blind eye to the fact that someone like me can't even express my opinions out loud or in social media because I would lose my job and have an incredibly hard time finding another one. As far as I'm concerned I've already lost freedom to express myself without the thin veil of anonymity offered by a forum such as this. The very censorship they opposed when it was censoring them, they favour now that it's censoring me. While I don't like a lot of what the left have to say, I stand up for their right to say it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SpiritDragon Thanks so much! I had decided that you had left the forum so I stopped checking for your response. I agree with you about Justin. I would like to see the back of him. I am amazed that Justin gets away with the things that he does. He interfered in the objectiveness of our judicial system! How dare you! What more do you need to do to get voted out of office? And the dressing up thing? Could you grow up please? 

I once invited a nonmember to an lds Halloween dance. We had coordinated outfits. I was southern belle and he was to be a southern beau. I arrived in my elaborate getup with all the trimmings. When I was rolled out of the car with the big skirt and parasol, there was a group of young woman at the curb. They had assembled to prevent me from killing my beau who unbeknownst to me had donned blackface.  That was a very longtime ago and everyone knew it was deeply wrong. I think he was making a statement about our former exclusion of blacks from the priesthood. Anyway. No one was happy. From the youngest to the oldest, we knew this was not a good thing to do. 

I teach young people in their 20s. At least 1/2 are brown. I am involved in the structure that prods them into the job market. They are a mixture of ambition laziness and sheer foolishness that drives me crazy. We are increasingly brown in the University population so racial tension is the very last thing we need. I see the conservative ad as an invite to those looking for a way to keep back the non -white tide. This invite scares the hell out of me.

i really don’t know what to do about this election. The PCs must have had a lot of meetings during which they pitched ideas, discussed these ideas, and approved that ad. I suspect that if we were to have a record of racial groups who graduate from UNI we would see that the future of some parts of the country will be brown. We are multicoloured and we need to embrace this.

Anyway thanks so much for your comprehensive responses! What a miserable election!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this