Allowing the Liberal Party and the NDP to draft legislation would have been an affront to every riding that did not elect an MP from those parties and it would have been a perversion of the spirit of our system of government. If you were not opposed to the coalition, and if you are not able to realize that Canada does not want Jack Layton writing law, you are an ignorant child.

Uh, let's see:

1. The majority of Canadians don't want Harper writing law either.

2. Stephen Harper tried to pull exactly the same thing in 04.

3. The only 'perversion of the spirit of our system of government', as you put it, is a PM who cancels parliament whenever he can't take the heat.

Canada Fight!

Yes, let's:

The results of our "first past the post" electoral system cannot be used to prove the claim you are making. The only intelligent argument you can make is that the majority of Canadians would rather someone else write law; and, considering that 144 of 308 ridings elected a Conservative MP, it's clear that the actual difference is very small.

By comparison, 77 ridings want the Liberal party leading the government. The NDP carried 36. That's a total of 113, which isn't enough for a coalition government. You'd also need the Bloc Quebecois, which has a strong conservative platform that's incompatible with the interests of NDP and Liberal voters.

Which is no better, if you ignore the fact that the Bloc Quebecois and Conservative Party have compatible platforms. Unlike the Liberals, of course, the media attacked him for doing it. Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Only slightly less perverse than turning every bill into a non-confidence vote, right?

Of course you're right because fascism is traditionally a right wing nationalist movement that opposed socialism (and many other things).

However, central to the idea of fascism is the striving to bundle power in one party and one strong leader. (Latin: fascis = bundle - hence the fascist symbolism which includes images such as an eagle holding a bundle of lightning bolts) It favours dictatorship over democracy.

If we compare the Stalin and Hitler regimes, they are in practicality and appearance almost identical. The leader cult, the megalomanic architecture, the megalomanic plans, the big parades, the conventions, the censorship, the suppression of opposition against the party.

The one big difference would of course be that communism strives to aid humanity as a whole and fascism only seeks to serve the interests of a single people or race.

Even though communism in the purest and most theoretical sense strives to put the means of production in the hands of the people in a classless, stateless society, one could argue that in practice the Mao and Stalin regimes were just as fascist as Hitler's.

I definitely agree that, in practice, communist and fascist regimes have tended toward totalitarianism driven by a cult of personality. But in most meaningful senses, especially in economics, the extant examples are quite different. Stalinist command economies require state ownership of the means of production, while Mussolini's planned economy focused on collective bargaining through fiat.

I don't know of any conservative that would support Comprehensive Immigration Reform. I think most would tell you we (as in the "Gubment") have simply been unwilling to address the core problems that we seem to be unwilling to enforce our border security and immigration laws as they stand. This would actually apply more to Republicans. Democrats are actively trying to subvert them. To sum up, run-of-the-mill Republicans (ie not the conservative variety) weak, democrat leadership (ie not traditional democrats) treasonous with regards to the issue of border security and immigration.

What an aptly opaque way of wording.

Threads about Canadian government?
In my Massassi?

That's an interesting way to put it. Treasonous. Would you be surprised to learn that the United States has lost 90 million visitors each year, starting in 2001, which can be directly attributed to Republican border policy (i.e. antagonistic security officers, racist policies, unreasonable search requirements, mismanagement of staff) and DHS incompetence? There's a huge impact on the economy, but it's difficult to calculate.

Tourism is one of the top three employers in most states.
More importantly, many of those visitors were businessmen. Lost business visitors means lost business.

Legal immigrants want nothing to do with your country. Illegals don't even want to live there anymore. The only reason the elites are doing anything about illegal immigration is because the issue is irrelevant.

You're a real piece of work. You make so much fun of me and Fox News while you seem ripped straight out of MSNBC's primetime lineup.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

Oh come now, everyone makes fun of Fox News.

Well-Known Debate Tactics 101 -- How To Confuse Wookie:

Using a general term ("gun control") to refer to a wide variety of measures, where Wookie might agree with some of those measures.
Using a general term ("health care reform") to mean only one specific measure, where Wookie might agree with other measures the term could describe.
Using a general term ("comprehensive immigration reform") to mean only one specific measure, where Wookie would not agree with any measure the term could describe.

is this based on the record number of legal immigrants naturalized in the passed couple of years, or the stable if not slightly rising inflow of new immigrants since the 70's or... what? is there some mass exedous of legal immigrants i dont know about?

i may be totally unaware of what your basing your statements on, but i already stuck my foot out there. if i am way off i will gladly put said foot into mouth.

fixed

He's probably confusing all of the people fleeing high tax burden and oppressive leftist states with illegals or something.

Because MSNBC, even if not perfect, is far better than Fox. Fox isn't news, it's a tabloid.

Not everyone. I see no difference between fox news and any of the other networks. They're all a bunch of idiots who thrive on misleading their viewers and love fear mongering.

I'm glad you said so! It started when you complained about the use of a general term to refer to something general, and then showed us why it was bad with an example of using a general term to refer to something specific.

I'm glad you said so! It started when I said I don't accept the manufactured definition of a specific term to generalize it and then showed examples of other specific terms that purposefully use general language.

Come on. Most networks put a spin on things. Fox outright makes **** up.

Ludicrous.

That's what you said last time. Then someone posted a whole bunch of links and images of stupid **** Fox has said. Then you couldn't come up with a good response.

I'd ask you to search "fox news errors" but I know you won't because you're afraid of the results. So here's a few to start:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/foxbias.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies

I don't advocate any mainstream media source. They are all primarily profit driven, but no one goes out of their way to add spin, weasel and slander like Fox does. It's an amazing business model and Rupert Murdock is a genius.

I mean, they've edited photos of people just to make them look ugly. Really?

Oh and, Mark Foley D-FL

I agree, you are.

Know what else is amazing?

How reporters who say things the government doesn't want, or the military doesn't want, get completely ****ing shut out. The news corporations and the government are so intertwined that the modern journalist is an overeducated stenographer. If you publish an article the government doesn't want, like that gossip piece in Rolling Stone that got McChrystal fired, you wind up in the mail room for the next 40 years. Freedom of the press my ass.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

Benito Mussolini said it, but Wookie06 lives it.

Speaking of which, did you know that Corporatist and professional salad tosser Ronald Reagan began his political life as a liberal democrat, supporter of fascist principles and opponent of civil rights?

Ohh. Haha, he only changed one of those things. How silly of me!

To be fair, MSNBC all but caucused for Obama in the last election. However, I wouldn't say that they generate a culture of fear-mongering that Fox News does.

Absolutely this.
Plenty of news places shove their opinion down their throat, leaving out certain details or trying to twist it in some way, which is disgusting enough. Fox news takes it to a new level and just outright lies right to your face.

Yeah it's amazing how many democtave were opposed to civil rights. But seriously though, ALOT of political heros have some pretty snarky skeletons in their clossets.

God, talk about a bunch of tards. You want to know who makes **** up? Jon'C just out right talks out of his ass on practically anything more controversial than HDMI standards and sheep here just fawn all over him. It's absolutely incredible. And Emon can't even come up with a source as credible as Media Matters to cite? Which is to say his sources are less credible than absolutely no credibility.

Yep, I totally made up the fact that Reagan was a liberal Democrat. I also made up the fact that he supported fascist economic policies. And the fact that he opposed civil rights, and only switched to the Republican party after the Democrats quit being racist? I pulled that out of my ass too.

I also made up the fact that Wookie06 was a ssgt about 10 years longer than anybody else with a pulse, and that he's so completely brainwashed by Fox News and their deliberate lies that he's incapable of believing simple and easily-verifiable historical fact.

Even if I concede any or all of the above, which I don't, the fact that he became a Conservative Republican that championed successful policies would make up for that. Far more than, say, Robert Byrd who praised the constitution he carried in his pocket every day while at the same time doing anything he could to destroy it. Oh, and when did the democrats stop being racist? Seems they're still in that trade.



Absolutely amazing considering I haven't even been a Staff Sergeant for 10 years! Another example of Jon'C talking out of his ass? No, it's witty, insightful brilliance!

Oh yeah, Reagan's trends have been working out really well for us.

I'm still going to say that your insistence that fox news is worse is just your own bias making it easier for you to forgive the other networks, and you should not be using it as an excuse to let the other players (who arguably still have much greater influence) get away with the **** they pull.

But look at that graph of Freelancer's. We had a little golden age in the 50s and 60s. Income was more evenly distributed. It doesn't look like the middle class made much more - $72! but it was at a time when that $72 went a lot further. When were we a super power? When did our decline start? Yeah. Reagan destroyed America. The republicans did it, and the democrats won't fix it. All they do is throw money at it, and let the barons keep getting richer. *******s.

THANKS

PS. Vote libertarian. Not because you like libertarians, they're still politicians and thus *******s, but just because the first thing we need to do to get another FDR elected is to break the back of the existing parties.

I'd have that monster as my signature if he wasn't so big, but I find mine equally funny so I'll stick with that

But why is he being posted?

Yknow I usually tend to have difficulty telling if Wookie is serious or not but he seems generally upset here.

That would make more sense if Jon`C never had fights with anyone else, which he does. Especially with me, Jon and I used to argue a lot, but when you come in with your Fox crap our opinions coincide.
I (and a HELL of a lot of people I know) find freaking hilarious, Jon`C's opinion has nothing to do with it.
But if you want to be the sheep that calls everyone sheep then go for it.

Yep, that's why fat, white, southern, protestant men are the only people who vote Republican: they aren't racist enough to vote Democrat.

hey look, it's a Republican!