NationStates

Canadian Davsland wrote:

Camicon wrote:You're going to have to find some actual sources to back up your bullshit. And no, your ass does not count as a source.

http://westcoastnativenews.com/stephen- ... oundation/ here's your proof.

That doesn't support any of your assertions. It's an ad hominem attack against Stephen Harper on that basis that he was once associated with an... unpleasant group, to put it lightly.

You said that the Conservative Party is a fascist, because "they are taking away our rights, oppressing the people of Canada, and changing election rules to suit their own needs". An attack piece which basis itself on Stephen Harper's past associations does not prove any of those things; it has absolutely no bearing on actual actions taken by the Conservative Party's government.

So, no, that is not proof.

Camicon wrote:

Canadian Davsland wrote:
http://westcoastnativenews.com/stephen- ... oundation/ here's your proof.

That doesn't support any of your assertions. It's an ad hominem attack against Stephen Harper on that basis that he was once associated with an... unpleasant group, to put it lightly.

You said that the Conservative Party is a fascist, because "they are taking away our rights, oppressing the people of Canada, and changing election rules to suit their own needs". An attack piece which basis itself on Stephen Harper's past associations does not prove any of those things; it has absolutely no bearing on actual actions taken by the Conservative Party's government.

So, no, that is not proof.

Actually it does show his true colours, and what I said previously about him IS true. That is the work of a fascist and a far right Anti Canadian traitor. So YES it IS proof.

Canadian Davsland wrote:

Camicon wrote:That doesn't support any of your assertions. It's an ad hominem attack against Stephen Harper on that basis that he was once associated with an... unpleasant group, to put it lightly.

You said that the Conservative Party is a fascist, because "they are taking away our rights, oppressing the people of Canada, and changing election rules to suit their own needs". An attack piece which basis itself on Stephen Harper's past associations does not prove any of those things; it has absolutely no bearing on actual actions taken by the Conservative Party's government.

So, no, that is not proof.

Actually it does show his true colours, and what I said previously about him IS true. That is the work of a fascist and a far right Anti Canadian traitor. So YES it IS proof.

Previously, you said nothing about Harper. This is the first time you brought him up. Need I remind you:

Canadian Davsland wrote:

Malkorian Empire wrote:I find it very disappointing with the amount of support for the PCs on here after Bill C-51.

They aren't PC's, they are fascist RefCons.

"[The Conservatives] aren't [Progressive Conservatives], they are fascist [Reform Conservatives]."
Further, your source does nothing other than provide names of organizations, and then point at Harper while yelling "HE WAS A PART OF THAT! GUILT BY ASSOCIATION!". The Conservative Party, as we know them, didn't even exist back then. Literally nothing in that source could possibly be used to support the assertion that the Tories are fascists. Nor could any of that be considered as evidence for the assertion that Stephen Harper is a fascist, given that we have records of actual actions and positions he has taken while a politician, which would supersede anything presented in a smear-piece about things that happened nearly two decades ago.

I dislike Harper as much as the next guy, but there are meaningful ways to criticize him. Yelling "fascist" isn't one of them, it's a distraction; it gives ammunition to his supporters to discredit (in the eyes of the public) otherwise pertinent and legitimate points. Shut it down already, you're not helping anything.

Can we stop using words such as "fascist", "racist", or "pinko" to smear political opponents? Using charged buzzwords to damage your political opponents really just dumbs us all down. I'm posting this here for obvious reasons.

Grunberg-Ludbach wrote:Can we stop using words such as "fascist", "racist", or "pinko" to smear political opponents? Using charged buzzwords to damage your political opponents really just dumbs us all down. I'm posting this here for obvious reasons.

I'm slowly starting to learn this just something you have to put up in a democracy. Truth be told I'm not sure what's worst, the smearing, or the fact that words the used to carry weight are now considered buzzwords. Well except for pinko... Like, that just got to be the more childish names to be smeared with. At least it's not as annoying as "better red than dead" the second markets aren't being decussed as a solution.

Canadian Davsland wrote:

Maineiacs wrote:

I wasn't aware Canada had a far right.

Unfortunately we do. Canada is not immune to far right conservatism.

We have not had anything close to an organized far right since the inter-war period, The National Social Chretain and the Canadian Union of Fascists ended that, Anything short of that is simple ignorance and Left wing naivety. At MOST the Christian Social Party is possibly closer, but the Torries are about as far right as Churchill or The Democratic party.

Seeing as commonwealth citizens in Canada were able to vote for the 2015 elections in the UK, could I, as a UK citizen, vote for the Canadian election?

I doubt it, but it's an interesting thought.

Grunberg-Ludbach wrote:Seeing as commonwealth citizens in Canada were able to vote for the 2015 elections in the UK, could I, as a UK citizen, vote for the Canadian election?

I doubt it, but it's an interesting thought.

http://blogs.wsj.com/expat/2015/04/27/why-can-commonwealth-citizens-vote-in-the-u-k-an-expat-asks/
I think it only works for UK elections.

Camicon wrote:

Canadian Davsland wrote:
Actually it does show his true colours, and what I said previously about him IS true. That is the work of a fascist and a far right Anti Canadian traitor. So YES it IS proof.

Previously, you said nothing about Harper. This is the first time you brought him up. Need I remind you:

Canadian Davsland wrote:
They aren't PC's, they are fascist RefCons.

"[The Conservatives] aren't [Progressive Conservatives], they are fascist [Reform Conservatives]."
Further, your source does nothing other than provide names of organizations, and then point at Harper while yelling "HE WAS A PART OF THAT! GUILT BY ASSOCIATION!". The Conservative Party, as we know them, didn't even exist back then. Literally nothing in that source could possibly be used to support the assertion that the Tories are fascists. Nor could any of that be considered as evidence for the assertion that Stephen Harper is a fascist, given that we have records of actual actions and positions he has taken while a politician, which would supersede anything presented in a smear-piece about things that happened nearly two decades ago.

I dislike Harper as much as the next guy, but there are meaningful ways to criticize him. Yelling "fascist" isn't one of them, it's a distraction; it gives ammunition to his supporters to discredit (in the eyes of the public) otherwise pertinent and legitimate points. Shut it down already, you're not helping anything.

Okay, how about Harper is a far right authoritarian.

The imperial canadian dutchy wrote:

Canadian Davsland wrote:
Unfortunately we do. Canada is not immune to far right conservatism.

We have not had anything close to an organized far right since the inter-war period, The National Social Chretain and the Canadian Union of Fascists ended that, Anything short of that is simple ignorance and Left wing naivety. At MOST the Christian Social Party is possibly closer, but the Torries are about as far right as Churchill or The Democratic party.

Jean Chrétien was NOT fascist. And the toiries in Canada are further to the right than the British Tories, and basically as far to the right as the GOP in the US.

Canadian Davsland wrote:

Camicon wrote:Previously, you said nothing about Harper. This is the first time you brought him up. Need I remind you:
"[The Conservatives] aren't [Progressive Conservatives], they are fascist [Reform Conservatives]."
Further, your source does nothing other than provide names of organizations, and then point at Harper while yelling "HE WAS A PART OF THAT! GUILT BY ASSOCIATION!". The Conservative Party, as we know them, didn't even exist back then. Literally nothing in that source could possibly be used to support the assertion that the Tories are fascists. Nor could any of that be considered as evidence for the assertion that Stephen Harper is a fascist, given that we have records of actual actions and positions he has taken while a politician, which would supersede anything presented in a smear-piece about things that happened nearly two decades ago.

I dislike Harper as much as the next guy, but there are meaningful ways to criticize him. Yelling "fascist" isn't one of them, it's a distraction; it gives ammunition to his supporters to discredit (in the eyes of the public) otherwise pertinent and legitimate points. Shut it down already, you're not helping anything.

Okay, how about Harper is a far right authoritarian.

He's not, he is just a normal Conservative, not some far right boogey man as you make him out to be, Is he generally incompetent? Yes, is he fucking Oswald Mosley reborn? Hardly can you tone down you're bloody left wing thickness? (Apologies if that counts as flaming). He passed one fucking act that some what inconveniences the average citizen, it's safe to say we will hardly ever feel it's effects.

Canadian Davsland wrote:

The imperial canadian dutchy wrote:
We have not had anything close to an organized far right since the inter-war period, The National Social Chretain and the Canadian Union of Fascists ended that, Anything short of that is simple ignorance and Left wing naivety. At MOST the Christian Social Party is possibly closer, but the Torries are about as far right as Churchill or The Democratic party.

Jean Chrétien was NOT fascist. And the toiries in Canada are further to the right than the British Tories, and basically as far to the right as the GOP in the US.

Not Jean Chretien, The National Social Chretien https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Unity_Party_(Canada)

The imperial canadian dutchy wrote:

Canadian Davsland wrote:
Jean Chrétien was NOT fascist. And the toiries in Canada are further to the right than the British Tories, and basically as far to the right as the GOP in the US.

Not Jean Chretien, The National Social Chretien https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Unity_Party_(Canada)

Oh them.

Canadian Davsland wrote:

Nation of Quebec wrote:
It's another law of theirs that I think we'll see repealed if the Liberals or NDP get into power.

Yeah. The liberals are looking likely to win, and if the NDP join the Liberals in a coalition, the RefCons laws will be finished.

You keep calling the Conservatives Fascists, but the Liberals whom also supported C-51 are fine and dandy?

Canadian Davsland wrote:Okay, how about Harper is a far right authoritarian.

Again, wrong. Harper is a social conservative with a nationalist streak and a penchant for free trade.

Canadian Davsland wrote:Jean Chrétien was NOT fascist. And the toiries in Canada are further to the right than the British Tories, and basically as far to the right as the GOP in the US.

Holy fuck, you know absolutely nothing about Canadian or American political parties, do you?

I hope Harper loses his own riding and so do many cabinet members.

San Lumen wrote:I hope Harper loses his own riding and so do many cabinet members.

he will likely win his seat. But if the CPC does worse than predicted. he will be kicked out of the party, or leave.

Canadian Davsland wrote:

San Lumen wrote:I hope Harper loses his own riding and so do many cabinet members.

he will likely win his seat. But if the CPC does worse than predicted. he will be kicked out of the party, or leave.

I hope his party loses and the Liberals get a majority. Has a sitting Prime Minister ever lost their own riding in Canada?

San Lumen wrote:

Canadian Davsland wrote:
he will likely win his seat. But if the CPC does worse than predicted. he will be kicked out of the party, or leave.

I hope his party loses and the Liberals get a majority. Has a sitting Prime Minister ever lost their own riding in Canada?

I'm pretty sure John A. lost Kingston once while in office, but he moved to a different riding once he knew he was going to loose.

San Lumen wrote:

Canadian Davsland wrote:
he will likely win his seat. But if the CPC does worse than predicted. he will be kicked out of the party, or leave.

I hope his party loses and the Liberals get a majority. Has a sitting Prime Minister ever lost their own riding in Canada?

Yes they have. Burt even if That Neo Con slime wins, his govt would be doomed no matter what.

Canadian Davsland wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
I hope his party loses and the Liberals get a majority. Has a sitting Prime Minister ever lost their own riding in Canada?

Yes they have. Burt even if That Neo Con slime wins, his govt would be doomed no matter what.

How many and who out of curiosity?

San Lumen wrote:

Canadian Davsland wrote:
he will likely win his seat. But if the CPC does worse than predicted. he will be kicked out of the party, or leave.

I hope his party loses and the Liberals get a majority. Has a sitting Prime Minister ever lost their own riding in Canada?

What's the difference between a majority and a minority? Just numbers?

Gim wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
I hope his party loses and the Liberals get a majority. Has a sitting Prime Minister ever lost their own riding in Canada?

What's the difference between a majority and a minority? Just numbers?

Minority governments hold a plurality of seats in the House; that is, they have more than every other party, but not more than 50%. Minority governments cannot pass legislation on their own, for obvious reasons, and so are forced into official/unofficial coalitions with other parties, resulting in legislation which reflects the policies of both parties.

Gim wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
I hope his party loses and the Liberals get a majority. Has a sitting Prime Minister ever lost their own riding in Canada?

What's the difference between a majority and a minority? Just numbers?

A majority means you have the power to pass laws without opposition. And debates on laws to pass with a majority are pointless.

A Minority means you have to have a debate in the parliament plus a full vote. This can also mean that laws passed by the govt might not pass if the opposition is stronger. This can be avoided by going into a coalition with other parties.

Canadian Davsland wrote:

Gim wrote:
What's the difference between a majority and a minority? Just numbers?

A majority means you have the power to pass laws without opposition. And debates on laws to pass with a majority are pointless.

A Minority means you have to have a debate in the parliament plus a full vote. This can also mean that laws passed by the govt might not pass if the opposition is stronger. This can be avoided by going into a coalition with other parties.

Ah, I see, passing laws is an issue. Thank you for the clear statements.