- Mar 13, 2009
- 2,932
- 55
- 11,580
Heartland and Ian Tyson are where it's at. Barrel Racing Angel could have been about my mother.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D06nZzTceO8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D06nZzTceO8
- Status
- Jul 4, 2009
- 9,666
- 0
- 0
....appears that Nutty Yahoo has found some of that special acid that he hid during his days as a wild child....here are some of the resultant hallucinations....for now...more "frivolity" may follow ....assuming they don't catch him first ......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Netanyhau: Hitler only wanted to expel Jews, but Jerusalem mufti told him to burn them
Source: Haaretz
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sparked public uproar when on Wednesday he claimed that the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was the one who planted the idea of the extermination of European Jewry in Adolf Hitler's mind. The Nazi ruler, Netanyahu said, had no intention of killing the Jews, but only to expel them.
Read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.681525?v=5F5E7462DD9B28912285B2F7FD52B0CB
Look for Netanyahu to be the keynote speaker at Iran's next Holocaust 'revisionism' conference.
Here's the language in question copied and pasted directly from the Israeli government's website:
And this attack and other attacks on the Jewish community in 1920, 1921, 1929, were instigated by a call of the Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini, who was later sought for war crimes in the Nuremberg trials because he had a central role in fomenting the final solution. He flew to Berlin. Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jews. And Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said, "If you expel them, they'll all come here." "So what should I do with them?" he asked. He said, "Burn them." And he was sought in, during the Nuremberg trials for prosecution. He escaped it and later died of cancer, after the war, died of cancer in Cairo. But this is what Haj Amin al-Husseini said. He said, ":The Jews seek to destroy the Temple Mount." My grandfather in 1920 seeks to destroy…? Sorry, the al-Aqsa Mosque.
http://www.pmo.gov.il/English/MediaCenter/Speeches/Pages/speechcongress201015.aspx
For the record, the Final Solution was fully underway well before Hitler met the mufti.
This should end his career, but won't.
David Irving made the same claim, that Hitler only wanted to deport them.
Yes, that David Irving.
http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/evans/340c.html
Cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Netanyhau: Hitler only wanted to expel Jews, but Jerusalem mufti told him to burn them
Source: Haaretz
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sparked public uproar when on Wednesday he claimed that the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was the one who planted the idea of the extermination of European Jewry in Adolf Hitler's mind. The Nazi ruler, Netanyahu said, had no intention of killing the Jews, but only to expel them.
Read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.681525?v=5F5E7462DD9B28912285B2F7FD52B0CB
Look for Netanyahu to be the keynote speaker at Iran's next Holocaust 'revisionism' conference.
Here's the language in question copied and pasted directly from the Israeli government's website:
And this attack and other attacks on the Jewish community in 1920, 1921, 1929, were instigated by a call of the Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini, who was later sought for war crimes in the Nuremberg trials because he had a central role in fomenting the final solution. He flew to Berlin. Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jews. And Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said, "If you expel them, they'll all come here." "So what should I do with them?" he asked. He said, "Burn them." And he was sought in, during the Nuremberg trials for prosecution. He escaped it and later died of cancer, after the war, died of cancer in Cairo. But this is what Haj Amin al-Husseini said. He said, ":The Jews seek to destroy the Temple Mount." My grandfather in 1920 seeks to destroy…? Sorry, the al-Aqsa Mosque.
http://www.pmo.gov.il/English/MediaCenter/Speeches/Pages/speechcongress201015.aspx
For the record, the Final Solution was fully underway well before Hitler met the mufti.
This should end his career, but won't.
David Irving made the same claim, that Hitler only wanted to deport them.
Yes, that David Irving.
http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/evans/340c.html
Cheers
- Jul 4, 2009
- 9,666
- 0
- 0
Re:
....kinda fixed...hope you don't mind...
Cheers
python said:yeah, i saw that piece of bibi brilliancy in one of my rss feeds 2h back...
nothing to say except when the chief zionist has the back (is that a proper english ?) of a chief nazi it is time to wonder what herr goebbels would say
....kinda fixed...hope you don't mind...
Cheers
- Jul 4, 2009
- 9,666
- 0
- 0
Re:
....that was said in the heat of the election battle so it deserves a bit of a pass....but I hope that with a more sober second look at the situation he can come up with something that does not simply channel the jingoistic Stephen Harper at his dumbest...
Cheers
del1962 said:
....that was said in the heat of the election battle so it deserves a bit of a pass....but I hope that with a more sober second look at the situation he can come up with something that does not simply channel the jingoistic Stephen Harper at his dumbest...
Cheers
- Jun 22, 2009
- 4,991
- 1
- 0
blutto said:
Yes I guess you are showing your true face, here. Worst thing is that you once claim I made Christopher Lasch spin in his grave, lol. What irony! Though I guess you are deliberately provocative.
The hewers of wood, leave them alone, dude. You have no respect for manual workers. The "Collège classique" that Lesage had to destroy (probably against his will, he was overtaken by events) was one of the best higher education system in the world (Duplessis was ridiculed when he said that), which served as a model for the Japanese schools, was admired by Germans, Americans, etc.
The strength of the "Collège classique" was that it was based on letters, on languages (in particular classical languages: Latin & Ancient Greek), literature, religion & philosophy. The new collège focused on maths and science, first & foremost. The elite can no longer read Shakespeare or Cicero. With such a materialistic elite, how surprising that libertarianism prevails ???
Funny thing, Lasch noticed the same evolution re: American education.
Collective healthcare already existed in our medieval guilds and the guilds had been destroyed by the Left during the French Revolution. The modern single-payer healthcare system is only a revival of what our ancestors in the Middle Ages & the Renaissance already enjoyed. The first to oppose the wild capitalistic system of the 19th century were right-wing reactionary Catholics: I'm thinking of Johann Muller, Wilhelm von Ketteler or René de la Tour du Pin.
The rigid ideology is the left-wing Enlightened philosophy and its economic branch: "physiocracy" which produced Adam Smith and the modern liberalism/libertarianism (whatever you call it). They saw themselves as such, it's not my fault. I'm well aware of the complexity of reality but ideologies exist and are usually very consistent. Thus rigid!
Lol that post was edited, I guess.
You can't face reality, dude. You've just voted for a guy who claimed to be on the Americano-Zionisto-ISIS connection against Putin in Syria. Deal with it! How on earth can left-wing parties be trusted re: geopolitics! It's beyond me.
- Jul 4, 2009
- 9,666
- 0
- 0
Echoes said:blutto said:
Yes I guess you are showing your true face, here. Worst thing is that you once claim I made Christopher Lasch spin in his grave, lol. What irony! Though I guess you are deliberately provocative.
The hewers of wood, leave them alone, dude. You have no respect for manual workers. The "Collège classique" that Lesage had to destroy (probably against his will, he was overtaken by events) was one of the best higher education system in the world (Duplessis was ridiculed when he said that), which served as a model for the Japanese schools, was admired by Germans, Americans, etc.
The strength of the "Collège classique" was that it was based on letters, on languages (in particular classical languages: Latin & Ancient Greek), literature, religion & philosophy. The new collège focused on maths and science, first & foremost. The elite can no longer read Shakespeare or Cicero. With such a materialistic elite, how surprising that libertarianism prevails ???
Funny thing, Lasch noticed the same evolution re: American education.
Collective healthcare already existed in our medieval guilds and the guilds had been destroyed by the Left during the French Revolution. The modern single-payer healthcare system is only a revival of what our ancestors in the Middle Ages & the Renaissance already enjoyed. The first to oppose the wild capitalistic system of the 19th century were right-wing reactionary Catholics: I'm thinking of Johann Muller, Wilhelm von Ketteler or René de la Tour du Pin.
The rigid ideology is the left-wing Enlightened philosophy and its economic branch: "physiocracy" which produced Adam Smith and the modern liberalism/libertarianism (whatever you call it). They saw themselves as such, it's not my fault. I'm well aware of the complexity of reality but ideologies exist and are usually very consistent. Thus rigid!
Lol that post was edited, I guess.
How on earth can left-wing parties be trusted re: geopolitics! It's beyond me.
....in point of fact I didn't.....in fact I didn't even vote for a guy and I have a Green Party membership card to lend credence to that claim ( working with that group for the last 20 odd years should also add more credence to my claim )....not that any of that would really matter to you since it doesn't neatly fit into that fairy tale you just puked up here...
....as for the edit?...well, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and an edit is just an edit....
...as for the rest of your screed....more word salad that has just enough truthiness flavour to it to keep it ever so slightly above the level of conspiracies involving shape-shifting trans-dimensional lizards who control humanity thru the Illuminati....and the sad thing is you have probably wasted an awful lot of time assembling and fine tuning your fabulation ( though on the bright side it has kept you from devoting your energies to other things that may actually have been important in some way...and screwing them up royally just as you have with your, uhhh, analysis of history ...)...
Cheers
- Jul 4, 2009
- 9,666
- 0
- 0
....earmuffs required....heads exploding imminently....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel’s Nuclear Advisory Panel Endorses Iran Deal
1 hr ago - In defense establishment discussions of the Iranian nuclear agreement, Israel’s Atomic Energy Commission, which advises the government on nuclear issues, has endorsed the pact, a source familiar with the commission’s stance told Haaretz Thursday. The ... (Haaretz)
Cheers
Edit
....from the comments section...
"The question everyone should be asking ... If Israel's foremost agency on nuclear issues endorses the deal as a means to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, why does Netanyahu so vehemently oppose it?
I think it's not due to a disagreement about nuclear containment, but because what Bibi really wants is a war against Iran with the USA shouldering the burden."
....so the removal of a pretext for war was the issue all along....not the crap shovelled by various Wrong Wing minions and their fellow travellers....?.....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel’s Nuclear Advisory Panel Endorses Iran Deal
1 hr ago - In defense establishment discussions of the Iranian nuclear agreement, Israel’s Atomic Energy Commission, which advises the government on nuclear issues, has endorsed the pact, a source familiar with the commission’s stance told Haaretz Thursday. The ... (Haaretz)
Cheers
Edit
....from the comments section...
"The question everyone should be asking ... If Israel's foremost agency on nuclear issues endorses the deal as a means to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, why does Netanyahu so vehemently oppose it?
I think it's not due to a disagreement about nuclear containment, but because what Bibi really wants is a war against Iran with the USA shouldering the burden."
....so the removal of a pretext for war was the issue all along....not the crap shovelled by various Wrong Wing minions and their fellow travellers....?.....
- Jul 23, 2009
- 5,412
- 19
- 17,510
- Jul 4, 2009
- 9,666
- 0
- 0
...Harper, done in by, uh, irony...well......Stockwell Day, another Conservative/Reform leader, had a comedian contribute greatly to his defeat a few elections ago...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
By: Kate Jaimet Published on Fri Oct 23 2015
Who defeated Stephen Harper this election? It was Martin Short and Rick Moranis; Cathy Jones and Shaun Majumder. It was Don Ferguson and Mary Walsh; Mark Critch and Luba Goy. These comedians didn’t campaign for the Liberals or NDP. What they did, over the past five decades, is to crystallize, hone and heighten the inborn Canadian sense of irony. And irony killed Stephen Harper.
For a sense of irony lodges deep in the Canadian soul. Some say it comes from being the saucy little sister of the great and mighty United States of America. Whatever the origins of Canadian irony, it rests in that same sacred place where we store our memories of log fires on cold winter days, of springtime sap dripping from the maple trees, of glorious summer canoe trips and of auburn leaves ablaze on the autumn hillsides. And politicians ignore it at their peril.
Look at the defining ads of the election campaign: Harper went after Trudeau with a sledgehammer, airing attack ads that condemned him for being “just not ready.” Mulcair swallowed the narrative line and earnestly proclaimed: “I’m ready!”
What did Trudeau do? Did he swing back with a bigger sledgehammer? No, he turned the phrase on its head. Sure, he said, with an ironic twinkle in those teasing brown eyes, I’m “just not ready” — then came the punchline: just not ready to put up with five more years of Conservative rule.
It was clever, oh so clever, that ironic twist on Harper’s own phrase. Some have said that Harper was tone-deaf to the plight of Syrian refugees. I say he was tone-deaf to Canadian irony.
For proof, look no further than Harper’s promise in the late stages of the campaign to establish a tip line where Canadians could rat each other out for so-called barbaric cultural practices. “Barbaric cultural practices” — my God, it was comic gold! The name itself cried out to be mocked, and mock it we did.
This Hour Has 22 Minutes immediately jumped on it, creating a sketch in which anonymous tipsters called into the hotline to report such offences as a captive woman being forced to kiss a fish — a “barbaric practice” that turned out to be a Newfoundland screeching-in ceremony. Meanwhile, Canadians spontaneously created the twitter hashtag #BarbaricCulturalPractices to report a slew of horrific offences: Wearing socks with sandals #BarbaricCulturalPractices! Beer-bellied men in Speedos #BarbaricCulturalPractices! Triple-bacon-pork-belly poutine #BarbaricCulturalPractices!
Then, like the punchline to a 78-day-long joke, came Harper’s final, desperate appearance at a suburban Toronto rally with the Rob and Doug Ford. To his loyal legions of followers, Rob Ford could get away with being Rob Ford, because he didn’t pretend to be anything other than what he was: a loud-mouthed, hard-drinking, hard-partying, unapologetic boor.
But for Harper — prim, proper, puritanical Stephen Harper — to hitch his wagon to the erratically careening star of the Ford brothers? For tough-on-drugs Harper — who had spent the entire campaign warning Canadians that Trudeau would hook their kids on weed and install an injection site on every street-corner — to embrace the crack-smoking ex-mayor of Toronto? The irony was thicker than a pot of French-Canadian pea soup in a Halifax fog.
Irony does not let pomposity and hypocrisy go unpunished. Irony *** the bubble of the overconfident and sabotages the self-righteousness of the smug. Irony is the friend of the people. This year, it was the enemy of Stephen Harper.
Kate Jaimet is an Ottawa writer and former Parliament Hill reporter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
By: Kate Jaimet Published on Fri Oct 23 2015
Who defeated Stephen Harper this election? It was Martin Short and Rick Moranis; Cathy Jones and Shaun Majumder. It was Don Ferguson and Mary Walsh; Mark Critch and Luba Goy. These comedians didn’t campaign for the Liberals or NDP. What they did, over the past five decades, is to crystallize, hone and heighten the inborn Canadian sense of irony. And irony killed Stephen Harper.
For a sense of irony lodges deep in the Canadian soul. Some say it comes from being the saucy little sister of the great and mighty United States of America. Whatever the origins of Canadian irony, it rests in that same sacred place where we store our memories of log fires on cold winter days, of springtime sap dripping from the maple trees, of glorious summer canoe trips and of auburn leaves ablaze on the autumn hillsides. And politicians ignore it at their peril.
Look at the defining ads of the election campaign: Harper went after Trudeau with a sledgehammer, airing attack ads that condemned him for being “just not ready.” Mulcair swallowed the narrative line and earnestly proclaimed: “I’m ready!”
What did Trudeau do? Did he swing back with a bigger sledgehammer? No, he turned the phrase on its head. Sure, he said, with an ironic twinkle in those teasing brown eyes, I’m “just not ready” — then came the punchline: just not ready to put up with five more years of Conservative rule.
It was clever, oh so clever, that ironic twist on Harper’s own phrase. Some have said that Harper was tone-deaf to the plight of Syrian refugees. I say he was tone-deaf to Canadian irony.
For proof, look no further than Harper’s promise in the late stages of the campaign to establish a tip line where Canadians could rat each other out for so-called barbaric cultural practices. “Barbaric cultural practices” — my God, it was comic gold! The name itself cried out to be mocked, and mock it we did.
This Hour Has 22 Minutes immediately jumped on it, creating a sketch in which anonymous tipsters called into the hotline to report such offences as a captive woman being forced to kiss a fish — a “barbaric practice” that turned out to be a Newfoundland screeching-in ceremony. Meanwhile, Canadians spontaneously created the twitter hashtag #BarbaricCulturalPractices to report a slew of horrific offences: Wearing socks with sandals #BarbaricCulturalPractices! Beer-bellied men in Speedos #BarbaricCulturalPractices! Triple-bacon-pork-belly poutine #BarbaricCulturalPractices!
Then, like the punchline to a 78-day-long joke, came Harper’s final, desperate appearance at a suburban Toronto rally with the Rob and Doug Ford. To his loyal legions of followers, Rob Ford could get away with being Rob Ford, because he didn’t pretend to be anything other than what he was: a loud-mouthed, hard-drinking, hard-partying, unapologetic boor.
But for Harper — prim, proper, puritanical Stephen Harper — to hitch his wagon to the erratically careening star of the Ford brothers? For tough-on-drugs Harper — who had spent the entire campaign warning Canadians that Trudeau would hook their kids on weed and install an injection site on every street-corner — to embrace the crack-smoking ex-mayor of Toronto? The irony was thicker than a pot of French-Canadian pea soup in a Halifax fog.
Irony does not let pomposity and hypocrisy go unpunished. Irony *** the bubble of the overconfident and sabotages the self-righteousness of the smug. Irony is the friend of the people. This year, it was the enemy of Stephen Harper.
Kate Jaimet is an Ottawa writer and former Parliament Hill reporter.
- Jul 4, 2009
- 9,666
- 0
- 0
....things have turned very bad here in Soviet Canuckistan...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ezra Levant of TheRebel.media wrote at the Toronto Sun that Trudeau wore a full Arab-style Muslim dress called a jalabiya to the mosque in B.C. called the Surrey Jamia Masjid. Levant explained, “But it’s not Trudeau’s dress that was the most unusual. It’s what he did. He went to the mosque to participate in a religious ritual, called the Maghrib salah. It’s a daily prayer service with a particular meaning. Part of the prayer is called the shahada, which in Arabic means to testify. As in, to testify to the Truth that Allah is the one true God, and Mohammed is his one true Prophet. To say the shahada, in the presence of two or more Muslim males, is the sole requirement in Islamic law to convert to Islam."
....from... http://canadafreepress.com/article/76249 ....the toilet paper of record up here in the frozen tundra....like its real good eh....
Cheers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ezra Levant of TheRebel.media wrote at the Toronto Sun that Trudeau wore a full Arab-style Muslim dress called a jalabiya to the mosque in B.C. called the Surrey Jamia Masjid. Levant explained, “But it’s not Trudeau’s dress that was the most unusual. It’s what he did. He went to the mosque to participate in a religious ritual, called the Maghrib salah. It’s a daily prayer service with a particular meaning. Part of the prayer is called the shahada, which in Arabic means to testify. As in, to testify to the Truth that Allah is the one true God, and Mohammed is his one true Prophet. To say the shahada, in the presence of two or more Muslim males, is the sole requirement in Islamic law to convert to Islam."
....from... http://canadafreepress.com/article/76249 ....the toilet paper of record up here in the frozen tundra....like its real good eh....
Cheers
- Jul 4, 2009
- 9,666
- 0
- 0
....interesting article on situation in Syria since some adults got involved....
http://www.unz.com/ishamir/secrets-of-syrian-war-october-2015/
...wherein we find the following...
"Anyway Assad would not listen to us even if we asked him. If you want Assad to leave, talk to him, Lavrov suggested, tongue in cheek. Propose some guarantees, residence, money. But what are the guarantees worth after the Ukraine debacle, as President Yanukovych accepted all conditions of the EU ministers, signed his surrender, received their guarantees, and on the next day he was forced to escape by skin of his teeth?” Thus the recent experience of Ukraine, Iraq, and Libya make the solution in Syria more complicated."
....and this....read comments and compare/contrast against the article...
http://platosguns.com/2015/10/24/watch-islamic-state-threatens-israel-in-new-hebrew-video-ricky-ben-davidthe-times-of-israel/
Cheers
http://www.unz.com/ishamir/secrets-of-syrian-war-october-2015/
...wherein we find the following...
"Anyway Assad would not listen to us even if we asked him. If you want Assad to leave, talk to him, Lavrov suggested, tongue in cheek. Propose some guarantees, residence, money. But what are the guarantees worth after the Ukraine debacle, as President Yanukovych accepted all conditions of the EU ministers, signed his surrender, received their guarantees, and on the next day he was forced to escape by skin of his teeth?” Thus the recent experience of Ukraine, Iraq, and Libya make the solution in Syria more complicated."
....and this....read comments and compare/contrast against the article...
http://platosguns.com/2015/10/24/watch-islamic-state-threatens-israel-in-new-hebrew-video-ricky-ben-davidthe-times-of-israel/
Cheers
- Jul 4, 2009
- 9,666
- 0
- 0
The Older, Better Canada Is Back Again
Toronto- I used to call Canada ‘the land that time forgot.’ While the rest of the world lurched from crisis to crisis, Canada remained peaceful, humane, prosperous, progressive and famously polite, a sort of North American Scandinavia.
Polls showed that Canada, for all its blandness and low profile, was one of the world’s most respected nations. The ethos of Canada was to make nice to everyone, aid less fortunate nations, shine at the UN and make peace-keeping a national cause.
That was, of course, until the old political order broke down after a series of scandals in Quebec. The Conservatives, an insurgent party made up of farmers and other reactionaries from the western provinces (aka ‘Canadian Republicans), gained power as first a minority government, then majority.
For ten years, the rightwing Conservatives political leader from Alberta, Stephen Harper, held power in Ottawa. He rapidly turned once easy-going Canada into something resembling a dictatorship-light in which Parliament was reduced to a rubber stamp, the courts were often cowed, and parts of the media brought under Harper’s control. Nastiness replaced politeness.
The Harper government was effective at economic management, notably deficit control, but over reliant on income from oil. But foreign and social policies changed dramatically. Harper was reported to be a member of an obscure Christian fundamentalist church that appeared to be close to America’s Bible Belt religious fundamentalists. Unfortunately, Canada’s media never dared broach this subject.
If it had, Canadian voters might never have keep supporting the Conservative Party’s holy rollers who believe the earth will soon be destroyed, the Messiah will return, and non-born again believers will be roasted alive. Key to this destruction, known as End of Days, is re-creation of Biblical Israel.
Harper suddenly emerged as the most ardent champion of Israel’s far right Likud government. Israel’s Bibi Netanyahu and Harper became best friends. Under Harper, Canada, once a leader of human rights, told Palestinians they did not deserve a state and were ‘terrorists.’
For me, one of the most admirable features of Canada was its lack of the breast-beating patriotism and militarism that so defines the United States – to the dismay of even its closet friends abroad. Harper and his men sought to whip up nationalism and militarism in the public, focusing on “Islamic terrorism” and fear of Mideasterners.
A cabal of pro-Israel neoconservative academics in Alberta led the flag-waving charge in hope that Canada would one day join Israel in its military efforts. Harper had advocated sending Canadian troops to the 2003 Iraq War. He sent a large troops contingent to Afghanistan, where 158 Canadian soldiers died for nothing and C$18 billion were wasted so, as one senior official boasted, “Canada can stand tall at NATO meetings.”
Most lately, Harper sent a small number of F-18 fighter-bombers to join the make-believe war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Canada has little military power: it was simply Harper playing toy soldiers.
One of the first acts of the incoming prime minister, Justin Trudeau, was to order that Canadian fighters home, a move that met national approval and probably signaled the end to Canadian playing spear carrier to America’s atomic knights.
Canada’s mid-October election produced a near landslide for the opposition Liberal Party. Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney told me months ago that Harper would be thrown out, but I didn’t fully believe him. Mulroney was right on target. Harper and his sabre-rattling against Russia, Iran, the Arabs, Muslims, and assorted manufactured “terrorists” were repudiated. Canadians were too smart to fall for Harper’s claims that their nation was about to be engulfed by “Islamic terrorism.”
“Free, free at last!” as Martin Luther King said. A pall of fear has been lifted. The media can return to its key role of questioning government even though the biggest-circulation newspapers, the National-Post/Sun chain is a house organ for the Conservatives. The Sun carried this writer’s column in Canada for 27 years until ordered to shut it down by the prime minister’s office after I wrote that Canada’s little war in Afghanistan was a total failure and waste of lives.
Instead of posturing over the Mideast and Ukraine (large number of Ukrainian-origin farmers and Jewish voters in Montreal and Toronto were a major base for Harper), Canada will hopefully return to its former policies of peacekeeping and working through the UN. Netanyahu will no longer be able to give Ottawa its marching orders.
Harper’s fear-mongering even extended to charitable groups trying to spare animals suffering and abuse. Most were restricted by threats of income tax audits and loss of charity licenses. Why? Because Harper kept courting the farm vote which hates animal-rights groups.
Harper has resigned and his party is for the moment leaderless. Justin Trudeau and his Liberals appear set on returning the happier days of his late father, Pierre.
As Trudeau the Younger just said, Canada is heading for “sunnier days.”
Welcome home Canada.
http://ericmargolis.com/2015/10/the-older-better-canada-is-back-again/
Toronto- I used to call Canada ‘the land that time forgot.’ While the rest of the world lurched from crisis to crisis, Canada remained peaceful, humane, prosperous, progressive and famously polite, a sort of North American Scandinavia.
Polls showed that Canada, for all its blandness and low profile, was one of the world’s most respected nations. The ethos of Canada was to make nice to everyone, aid less fortunate nations, shine at the UN and make peace-keeping a national cause.
That was, of course, until the old political order broke down after a series of scandals in Quebec. The Conservatives, an insurgent party made up of farmers and other reactionaries from the western provinces (aka ‘Canadian Republicans), gained power as first a minority government, then majority.
For ten years, the rightwing Conservatives political leader from Alberta, Stephen Harper, held power in Ottawa. He rapidly turned once easy-going Canada into something resembling a dictatorship-light in which Parliament was reduced to a rubber stamp, the courts were often cowed, and parts of the media brought under Harper’s control. Nastiness replaced politeness.
The Harper government was effective at economic management, notably deficit control, but over reliant on income from oil. But foreign and social policies changed dramatically. Harper was reported to be a member of an obscure Christian fundamentalist church that appeared to be close to America’s Bible Belt religious fundamentalists. Unfortunately, Canada’s media never dared broach this subject.
If it had, Canadian voters might never have keep supporting the Conservative Party’s holy rollers who believe the earth will soon be destroyed, the Messiah will return, and non-born again believers will be roasted alive. Key to this destruction, known as End of Days, is re-creation of Biblical Israel.
Harper suddenly emerged as the most ardent champion of Israel’s far right Likud government. Israel’s Bibi Netanyahu and Harper became best friends. Under Harper, Canada, once a leader of human rights, told Palestinians they did not deserve a state and were ‘terrorists.’
For me, one of the most admirable features of Canada was its lack of the breast-beating patriotism and militarism that so defines the United States – to the dismay of even its closet friends abroad. Harper and his men sought to whip up nationalism and militarism in the public, focusing on “Islamic terrorism” and fear of Mideasterners.
A cabal of pro-Israel neoconservative academics in Alberta led the flag-waving charge in hope that Canada would one day join Israel in its military efforts. Harper had advocated sending Canadian troops to the 2003 Iraq War. He sent a large troops contingent to Afghanistan, where 158 Canadian soldiers died for nothing and C$18 billion were wasted so, as one senior official boasted, “Canada can stand tall at NATO meetings.”
Most lately, Harper sent a small number of F-18 fighter-bombers to join the make-believe war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Canada has little military power: it was simply Harper playing toy soldiers.
One of the first acts of the incoming prime minister, Justin Trudeau, was to order that Canadian fighters home, a move that met national approval and probably signaled the end to Canadian playing spear carrier to America’s atomic knights.
Canada’s mid-October election produced a near landslide for the opposition Liberal Party. Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney told me months ago that Harper would be thrown out, but I didn’t fully believe him. Mulroney was right on target. Harper and his sabre-rattling against Russia, Iran, the Arabs, Muslims, and assorted manufactured “terrorists” were repudiated. Canadians were too smart to fall for Harper’s claims that their nation was about to be engulfed by “Islamic terrorism.”
“Free, free at last!” as Martin Luther King said. A pall of fear has been lifted. The media can return to its key role of questioning government even though the biggest-circulation newspapers, the National-Post/Sun chain is a house organ for the Conservatives. The Sun carried this writer’s column in Canada for 27 years until ordered to shut it down by the prime minister’s office after I wrote that Canada’s little war in Afghanistan was a total failure and waste of lives.
Instead of posturing over the Mideast and Ukraine (large number of Ukrainian-origin farmers and Jewish voters in Montreal and Toronto were a major base for Harper), Canada will hopefully return to its former policies of peacekeeping and working through the UN. Netanyahu will no longer be able to give Ottawa its marching orders.
Harper’s fear-mongering even extended to charitable groups trying to spare animals suffering and abuse. Most were restricted by threats of income tax audits and loss of charity licenses. Why? Because Harper kept courting the farm vote which hates animal-rights groups.
Harper has resigned and his party is for the moment leaderless. Justin Trudeau and his Liberals appear set on returning the happier days of his late father, Pierre.
As Trudeau the Younger just said, Canada is heading for “sunnier days.”
Welcome home Canada.
http://ericmargolis.com/2015/10/the-older-better-canada-is-back-again/
- Jul 4, 2009
- 9,666
- 0
- 0
.....hmmm, things may not be goin' so good with the glorious revolution...of course this comes as such a huge surprise....and the big problem is that there is every indication that this is going to get worse, much worse....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Day Of ‘Disillusionment’ As Voters In Ukraine Go To The Polls
Source: Washington Post
By Andrew Roth October 25 at 3:58 PM
KIEV, Ukraine — Voters across Ukraine went to the polls Sunday to elect regional leaders amid widespread frustration over a sagging economy and stalled reforms nearly two years after a revolution here in the capital.
Exit polls showed low turnout, estimated at about 36 percent early Sunday evening, in a vote seen as a referendum on the leadership of President Petro Poroshenko. Elections were scrapped entirely in Mariupol, a major port city on the Sea of Azov, because the local election committee said the ballots had been printed by a regional oligarch who backs an opposition party.
“The main theme of the day is disillusionment,” said Balazs Jarabik, an expert on Ukraine and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “No one is voting.”
Large street protests in Kiev prompted by anger over corruption overthrew the government of former president Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014. Poroshenko, a billionaire confectionery magnate, and prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk headed a self-described “kamikaze government” that promised to carry out extensive reforms at a breakneck pace.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/day-of-disillusionment-as-voters-in-ukraine-go-to-the-polls/2015/10/25/53af3c00-78f2-11e5-a5e2-40d6b2ad18dd_story.html
Cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Day Of ‘Disillusionment’ As Voters In Ukraine Go To The Polls
Source: Washington Post
By Andrew Roth October 25 at 3:58 PM
KIEV, Ukraine — Voters across Ukraine went to the polls Sunday to elect regional leaders amid widespread frustration over a sagging economy and stalled reforms nearly two years after a revolution here in the capital.
Exit polls showed low turnout, estimated at about 36 percent early Sunday evening, in a vote seen as a referendum on the leadership of President Petro Poroshenko. Elections were scrapped entirely in Mariupol, a major port city on the Sea of Azov, because the local election committee said the ballots had been printed by a regional oligarch who backs an opposition party.
“The main theme of the day is disillusionment,” said Balazs Jarabik, an expert on Ukraine and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “No one is voting.”
Large street protests in Kiev prompted by anger over corruption overthrew the government of former president Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014. Poroshenko, a billionaire confectionery magnate, and prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk headed a self-described “kamikaze government” that promised to carry out extensive reforms at a breakneck pace.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/day-of-disillusionment-as-voters-in-ukraine-go-to-the-polls/2015/10/25/53af3c00-78f2-11e5-a5e2-40d6b2ad18dd_story.html
Cheers
- Sep 10, 2009
- 5,663
- 0
- 0
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/258016-tony-blair-apologizes-for-iraq-war
"Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is apologizing for the Iraq War and acknowledging that he could be partly to blame for the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. "There are elements of truth" to accusations that his and former President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein in 2003 led to the rise of the terror group in the Middle East, Blair said in an interview with Fareed Zakaria on CNN airing Sunday, according to the Daily Mail. "I apologize for the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong," Blair said. "I also apologize for some of the mistakes in planning and, certainly, our mistake in our understanding of what would happen once you removed the [Saddam Hussein] regime."
A start, I suppose, though much of it is a non-apology apology, but good to see someone from that period actually accepting some responsibility.
Course, if you listen to the American right it's GW who? and everything in the Middle East is entirely Obama's fault.
"Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is apologizing for the Iraq War and acknowledging that he could be partly to blame for the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. "There are elements of truth" to accusations that his and former President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein in 2003 led to the rise of the terror group in the Middle East, Blair said in an interview with Fareed Zakaria on CNN airing Sunday, according to the Daily Mail. "I apologize for the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong," Blair said. "I also apologize for some of the mistakes in planning and, certainly, our mistake in our understanding of what would happen once you removed the [Saddam Hussein] regime."
A start, I suppose, though much of it is a non-apology apology, but good to see someone from that period actually accepting some responsibility.
Course, if you listen to the American right it's GW who? and everything in the Middle East is entirely Obama's fault.
- Jun 22, 2009
- 4,991
- 1
- 0
- Sep 25, 2009
- 7,527
- 1
- 0
i realize that my question to some will sound rhetorical, but i am dead serious...
why some horrible deeds by politicians are referred to tribunals as war crimes (note, i dont include here the professional military who largely just follow orders) and other at times more horrible and destructive will be forgotten or at best exude a self-righteous apology ?
an example validity of which is widely accepted :
1. the war in iraq was illegal. check.
2. it was started under a false pretext. check.
3.thousands of american mothers never saw their sons come back home defending the illegal falsehood.
4. hundreds of thousands of iraqi mothers still grieve due to the illegal falsehood.
5. as a former pm responsible for the illegal falsehood just admitted, such barbarian org as isil takes its root from the illegal falsehood
etc...etc
the list could be continued, but really, why such monumental misdeeds by certain politicians are swept aside as mere mistakes, miscalculations or a collateral damage instead of facing a criminal probe
again i am serious and i do understand that political mistakes are not necessarily always ill-intended, still, some politicians are thrown in prisons for what others write memoirs and keep smiling...
why some horrible deeds by politicians are referred to tribunals as war crimes (note, i dont include here the professional military who largely just follow orders) and other at times more horrible and destructive will be forgotten or at best exude a self-righteous apology ?
an example validity of which is widely accepted :
1. the war in iraq was illegal. check.
2. it was started under a false pretext. check.
3.thousands of american mothers never saw their sons come back home defending the illegal falsehood.
4. hundreds of thousands of iraqi mothers still grieve due to the illegal falsehood.
5. as a former pm responsible for the illegal falsehood just admitted, such barbarian org as isil takes its root from the illegal falsehood
etc...etc
the list could be continued, but really, why such monumental misdeeds by certain politicians are swept aside as mere mistakes, miscalculations or a collateral damage instead of facing a criminal probe
again i am serious and i do understand that political mistakes are not necessarily always ill-intended, still, some politicians are thrown in prisons for what others write memoirs and keep smiling...
It begs the question
why was there such a strong opposition to the Iraq War (which I also opposed to) and virtually none to the Lybian War or the planned Syrian War? Why was there an even stronger opposition to the Vietnam War than to the Iraq War (+ why hasn't Hollywood produced any anti-"Iraq War" films like there were so many about the Vietnam War AFTER the war itself, of course).
Why were so many people willing to ignore the fact that Hussein was such a "bloody dictator" but acknowledge that Assad is one while we should all be happy that Assad & Putin tries to bring to heel the US-creation ISIS.
I still believe that the Iraq War was a left-wing/atheistic undertaking. The "far-right" all opposed to it (whether in the US or in Europe) but part of the Left (in the Anglo world or on the Continent) has always fervently approved of it, even long after anyone had realized it was a disaster and the WMD-pretext was a lie (like the Gulf of Tonkin incident, actually).
why was there such a strong opposition to the Iraq War (which I also opposed to) and virtually none to the Lybian War or the planned Syrian War? Why was there an even stronger opposition to the Vietnam War than to the Iraq War (+ why hasn't Hollywood produced any anti-"Iraq War" films like there were so many about the Vietnam War AFTER the war itself, of course).
Why were so many people willing to ignore the fact that Hussein was such a "bloody dictator" but acknowledge that Assad is one while we should all be happy that Assad & Putin tries to bring to heel the US-creation ISIS.
I still believe that the Iraq War was a left-wing/atheistic undertaking. The "far-right" all opposed to it (whether in the US or in Europe) but part of the Left (in the Anglo world or on the Continent) has always fervently approved of it, even long after anyone had realized it was a disaster and the WMD-pretext was a lie (like the Gulf of Tonkin incident, actually).
Echoes said:
Sorry, but that is just bull****. I think you may have forgotten Tony Blair is a centrist/centre-right Catholic politician, at the helm of the most right wing 'leftist' party in Europe until 2007. The main (most vocal) opposition for the Iraq War in the UK came from his own party, the more left wing figures such as Jeremy Corbyn. The left wing atheists opposed it. The Conservatives, right wing, almost all voted for the Iraq war. Only a few Tories rebelled, while 40-50 odd Labour MPs rebelled. The 'Far-Right' may have opposed the war, but they stayed quiet throughout so who knows? UKIP at the time were non existent, BNP are just a joke, as are EDL (which surely supported the war as whatever happens it meant killing Muslims, and the EDL like that sort of stuff).
Meanwhile, in the US, the main instigator of the war was Christian, God loving republican George Bush JR. *** Cheney also was a fervently right wing Christian conservative. I'm not sure how you managed to come to the conclusion that the Iraq war was an atheist/left wing undertaking, and I would be very interested in knowing.
- Jul 23, 2009
- 5,412
- 19
- 17,510
Echoes said:
Garbage...the GW2 was specifically in response to the WMD claim, made and enforced by the GOP at the time, from Dubya on down. The 'far right' all welcomed it.
What 'Syrian war'?..it is a civil war, not a war between states but one within a state..much like VietNam was a war to unify VietNam..after the artificial splitting of it post WWII(yes, it really was Eisenhower's war). Success of the Marshall plan in Europe was so important(specifically for France), we 'allowed' the French to colonize South VietNam...and the 'Vietnamese'(not North or South), fought that rule, from the North-to the south. But a civil war. AND close on the heals of the 'Iron Curtain' in Europe, the 'Domino effect'...and other such Commie scares..not surprised we tried to 'stop' communism in SE Asia.
Question, who did Ho Chi Minh first ask for help against the French?
GW Bush surely did not decide about the Iraq War on his own. He was just a muppet (and a drunkard).
The neocon movement was definitely born to soome left-wing intellectual circles close to Trotsky-ism in the 1970's: here. These were intellectuals who were increasingly dissatisfied with Nixon's "détente" policy. As Trotsky-ists they staunchly opposed to the Stalinian power in the USSR at that time. Such intellectuals included Seymour Martin Lipset, Melvin Lasky, and Albert Wohlstetter, among others. All from the City College in New-York.
Wohlstetter influenced Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz among others. There you have the connection between liberal movements of the seventies and the Iraq War.
Far-right politicians and/or intellectuals in the US who opposed the war included Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Paul Gottfried, Gary Johnson. I don't necessarily agree with all that these people are saying but it's a fact we have to note.
In the UK, whether BNP is a joke or not, Griffin opposed the war (again I'm not a supporter of the party, just observe). Farage was unknown at that time but he opposed the Lybian War and the planned intervention in Syria afterwards, which suggests that he would have voiced opposition to the Iraq War in 2003 if he were known then.
On the continent, Le Pen and Haider opposed to it, as well.
On the other hand, left-wing intellectuals such as Christopher Hitchens, Oliver Kamm, Bernard-Henri Lévy (and a barrage of French lefties), etc welcomed it and still defended it after anybody realized that it was a disaster and that the WMD were non-existent.
It must be food for thought, I guess.
Besides, I'm still wondering by there was less opposition to the Iraq War than there were to the Vietnam War, and less opposition to the Lybian War than to the Iraq War? Why do we welcome wars in particularly in the Muslim world more and more easily?
The neocon movement was definitely born to soome left-wing intellectual circles close to Trotsky-ism in the 1970's: here. These were intellectuals who were increasingly dissatisfied with Nixon's "détente" policy. As Trotsky-ists they staunchly opposed to the Stalinian power in the USSR at that time. Such intellectuals included Seymour Martin Lipset, Melvin Lasky, and Albert Wohlstetter, among others. All from the City College in New-York.
Wohlstetter influenced Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz among others. There you have the connection between liberal movements of the seventies and the Iraq War.
Far-right politicians and/or intellectuals in the US who opposed the war included Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Paul Gottfried, Gary Johnson. I don't necessarily agree with all that these people are saying but it's a fact we have to note.
In the UK, whether BNP is a joke or not, Griffin opposed the war (again I'm not a supporter of the party, just observe). Farage was unknown at that time but he opposed the Lybian War and the planned intervention in Syria afterwards, which suggests that he would have voiced opposition to the Iraq War in 2003 if he were known then.
On the continent, Le Pen and Haider opposed to it, as well.
On the other hand, left-wing intellectuals such as Christopher Hitchens, Oliver Kamm, Bernard-Henri Lévy (and a barrage of French lefties), etc welcomed it and still defended it after anybody realized that it was a disaster and that the WMD were non-existent.
It must be food for thought, I guess.
Besides, I'm still wondering by there was less opposition to the Iraq War than there were to the Vietnam War, and less opposition to the Lybian War than to the Iraq War? Why do we welcome wars in particularly in the Muslim world more and more easily?
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 36K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram