Canada; Strong and Free? - An essay on Canada from the U.K.

[woodbuck27]

Canada; Strong and Free? - An essay on Canada from the U.K.
Sometimes it takes an outside view to see things...

Canada; Strong and Free?

"With glowing hearts, we see thee rise/ The true North strong and free" - Canadian National Anthem

There was a time that Canada was a model Western state, indeed, Comedian and actor Peter Ustinov once described Toronto as "New York, run by the Swiss". It was a beautiful, rugged country of jagged mountains, sweeping rivers, towering snow dusted pines and majestic golden prairies rolling towards the horizon. Its people were (and for the most part still are) charming, well mannered, hard working, family orientated and God fearing. They also didn't hesitate to defend liberty and freedom wherever and whenever it was threatened, and Canadian soldiers fought across the globe to advance and defend liberty.

However, the leftist social assault that has been waging since the 1960's in all Western states has taken a particularly heavy toll on Canada. One could argue the toll taken is on a par with the leftist moral ruins that we see in Scandinavia or the Netherlands, and many commentators would agree that Canada is the most left wing politically correct nation outside of Europe...

Read the whole thing at:

http://thewwp.blogspot.com/2006/06/canada-strong-and-free.html

[Patler]

So what's your take on the article, Woodbuck?

I've made many, many trips to Montreal and Toronto over the last 25 years, and have spent the equivalent of many many months through out much of Ontario and Alberta. One part of my family two generations back moved to Canada over 100 years ago when others came to the US. Others have moved more recently. I have been involved in this exact debate, the direction Canada is headed politically, many times.

So while I am not as informed as a Canadian, I probably have a better understanding and experience about Canada than the average American. This is a topic of interest to me. The author raised valid points, I thought. What do you think?

[TPF]

I, personally, Love Canada. Great place to visit.

[woodbuck27]

So what's your take on the article, Woodbuck?

I've made many, many trips to Montreal and Toronto over the last 25 years, and have spent the equivalent of many many months through out much of Ontario and Alberta. One part of my family two generations back moved to Canada over 100 years ago when others came to the US. Others have moved more recently. I have been involved in this exact debate, the direction Canada is headed politically, many times.

So while I am not as informed as a Canadian, I probably have a better understanding and experience about Canada than the average American. This is a topic of interest to me. The author raised valid points, I thought. What do you think?

Patler: Good Day !

That was a powerful article that spells out the facts regarding Canada in it's Political direction. As an opener, I believe alot of it comes down to misuse of POWER and no real balls on behalf of OUR beaureaucrats to get it right. It's the beaureucrats that really establish policy.

Canada has had to keep passing the buck, to get the small pieces of the pie politically and forgotten the ordinary person - the middle class hard working tax payer. We have become a heathen Country religiously.It's getting better but not at all what it was before and after the Second World War. Can it just be blamed on urbanization? The people in the rural areas still LOVE God.

I am at a loss, as to why OUR Government hasn't taken a more positive stance regarding immigration and crime. It sickens me Partial, as they are linked. I don't get into politics as I used to. That is one area that can get me really worked ,as I have very strong feelings. I worked for a Party in 2004 again. Throughout my life I have been sometimes more active than others.

I'm really an OLD School guy who doesn't believe that LIFE is better now, Patler. The Federal Gov't. in Canada isn't acting resposibly, in regards to grass roots issues.

ie Proper support for the role of the parent/parents. Suppot for the Spiritual needs of my Nation. Proper measures to act as a deterrent to crime. We need laws that protect the moral good of mankind.

I refrain from any discussion on homosexuality, as I feel we all have the right to choose OUR sexuality. I am Pro choice in regards to abortion.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Woody, you sound like a Libertarian.

[woodbuck27]

Woody, you sound like a Libertarian.

Harvey: Good Day !

In a sense I am, but I live in a county that has to have a taxation system in place, to support the maintenace and improvement of the infrastructure,Public School System and Medicare or required standards for decent living conditions.

I do "in fact" support a minimum of Government interaction in people's lives.

I was raised in a home that supported a Progressive Conservative view on politics. Yet, I now vote for and support the best candidate. I don't allow anyone to influence me otherwise.

I don't believe that the Federal Government should do anymore, than ensure that any jurisdiction has less than a fair standard of living. I support Federal Governments support, for regional disparity, due to changing conditions related to Natural Resources and the National Medicare Program and infrastructure.

Otherwise, allow the Provinces to govern it's own citizens.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Well, you are very close to my way of thinking.

[MJZiggy]

Harv, are you sure you're a libertarian and not an independent?

[HarveyWallbangers]

I'm probably 50% libertarian, 30% conservative, 15% independent, and 5% liberal.
:D

[Patler]

I think of myself as a "conservindepentarian"

[MJZiggy]

So then which candidate do you vote for?

[Patler]

The democrat.

[MJZiggy]

Well, there ya have it. He's an independent!! :mrgreen:

[Patler]

In all honesty, as a young man I was very strongly democrat leaning, but always voted based on the candidate, not the party. I evolved into a strong conservative, but still vote the candidate, not the party. I don't often vote for e democrat, but there are a few some years (like for county coroner!)

[woodbuck27]

I'm probably 50% libertarian, 30% conservative, 15% independent, and 5% liberal. **
:D

Harvey. I am "in fact" in principle a Libertarian.

I thought to be a pure breed Libertarian, one must be opposed to paying (even at least) Federal Tax's. Taxes are necessary to maintain a minimum status of living for all people despite class, and to maintain Programs to service the infrastructure,maintain a public school system etc.

** Well Harvey, that means you have no tatoo on your tongue; :mrgreen:
and your strong at self analysis. That's quite a breakdown Harvey.

Have you ever studied Political Science?

[woodbuck27]

I think of myself as a "conservindepentarian"

That would almost be me Patler but more this.

"a Progressiveconserindependentarian" a PCI

Now that we almost established that, or OUR political leanings.

Would anyone like to take a critical or otherwise stab at the Article. I will say this. The author nailed it, he pulled no punches.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Have you ever studied Political Science?

Sort of. I was interested in Political Science, and took a couple of classes in college. Then, I decided Computer Science was more to my liking. It was at the University of Minnesota though--which runs about 8 liberal professors for every conservative professor. Fortunately, one of my Political Science teachers was a fair-minded individual (and great teacher) who wanted his students to see both sides. He wanted you to think--rather than just regurgitate campaign slogans.

[MJZiggy]

We had one that wanted to argue politics no matter what (in the communications dept. no less). He always claimed that there was no one further to the left than him and I believe wanted to argue not for the politics, but just to get us all to think and define what we believed. (By the way, I believe he was right. I've never met anyone before or after who was more liberal than he was)

[Patler]

Would anyone like to take a critical or otherwise stab at the Article. I will say this. The author nailed it, he pulled no punches.

I certainly can't make a critical comment about it, I found myself agreeing with his every remark.

In some ways I think what he describes for Canada has occured in many of the Allied nations after WWII. With WWII having followed quite closely on the heals of WWI, the victorious nations subconsciously wanted to make sure that they would oppress no one. Thus, a desire to be open and accomodating to everyone. This is not a bad goal, but when the definition of oppression becomes "The exposure by a minority class to a fundamental belief or practice contrary to their own" you start developing a state that is oppressive to the majority, and controlled in many very fundamental ways by those holding extreme minority opinions.

The result is what we see happening with the fundamental rights of Christians to practice their religion in public. Nativity scenes banned, Christmas festivals banned, bibles banned, certain speech banned.

The mere exposure of a nonbeliever to the activities of a believer is not oppression of the minority by the majority so long as there is not forced participation or restirctions on the minority in practicing whatever their belief is or isn't. I believe this has been forgotten in the zeal of many to protect the religious minorities in our countries.

[woodbuck27]

Would anyone like to take a critical or otherwise stab at the Article. I will say this. The author nailed it, he pulled no punches.

I certainly can't make a critical comment about it, I found myself agreeing with his every remark.

In some ways I think what he describes for Canada has occured in many of the Allied nations after WWII. With WWII having followed quite closely on the heals of WWI, the victorious nations subconsciously wanted to make sure that they would oppress no one. Thus, a desire to be open and accomodating to everyone. This is not a bad goal, but when the definition of oppression becomes "The exposure by a minority class to a fundamental belief or practice contrary to their own" you start developing a state that is oppressive to the majority, and controlled in many very fundamental ways by those holding extreme minority opinions.

The result is what we see happening with the fundamental rights of Christians to practice their religion in public. Nativity scenes banned, Christmas festivals banned, bibles banned, certain speech banned.

The mere exposure of a nonbeliever to the activities of a believer is not oppression of the minority by the majority so long as there is not forced participation or restirctions on the minority in practicing whatever their belief is or isn't. I believe this has been forgotten in the zeal of many to protect the religious minorities in our countries.

Your seeing exactly what I'm seeing. I only speak for myself, as I believe that proper government works fairly, based on the individuals rights as he/she see what's best for him/her - living in a Democratic Society.

It's really gone ass backwards up here in alot of respects. Life isn't better as I once knew it but alot more strained and far less personal with emphasis on greed. It seems to affect everyone in one manner or another.

We are all victims today of too much. You would be absolutely shocked at the commercialism of the Montreal area. It would blow your mind Patler. This is a fast-fast place. Incredible disparity between the very very rich and the dirt poor - street people.

It's just sickening compared to my home in Saint John, New Brunswick. A poor class there also, but not on display as we see on visits to Montreal proper (the island of Montreal). I live in the more affluent Montreal ( South Shore) - South of the St.Lawrence River, and soon after that on a short drive one arrives at the American border. Vermont.