Canadians do not share their PM stance, yet still divide (polls)

12346

Comments

  • thankyougrandma
    thankyougrandma Posts: 1,182
    reborncareerist wrote:
    I was using said bullshit to make my point ... and surferdude repeated it better than I did initially. What good is hearing from him about every new development going to do? Last I heard, the Canadian government was actually pushing for a ceasefire, although perhaps not an unconditional one. Should this get repeated each and every time a civilian dies?
    You guys know his stance! What else do you need?

    Seriously i'd like him to get involve... if it's for Israel let it be and he'll pay the price or get result for his stance, now he's not answering question, he's not giving any hint at what he think of the last massacre, he barely talked about the UN canadian observer that was killed (mostly questionning the UN for being there), so far the only official statement is the one he made after the G8, as i said to Surferdude, if you're comfortable with this, kudos to you, i wish i would, but i'm not. I also don't like the hi jacking of Canadian values by a PM who hold a minority of the popular vote, but that might be another more general topic...
    "L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
    -Jean-Jacques Rousseau
  • thankyougrandma
    thankyougrandma Posts: 1,182
    reborncareerist wrote:
    I know, the whole thing is just sickening. When I read yesterday that the UN had scrapped plans for a meeting, I saw red.

    UN are controlled by the USA right now, it's diplomatic blocking, same thing that happen in Rwanda but with different actors, sickening...
    "L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
    -Jean-Jacques Rousseau
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    thankyougrandma wrote:
    Seriously i'd like him to get involve... if it's for Israel let it be and he'll pay the price or get result for his stance, now he's not answering question, he's not giving any hint at what he think of the last massacre, he barely talked about the UN canadian observer that was killed (mostly questionning the UN for being there), so far the only official statement is the one he made after the G8, as i said to Surferdude, if you're comfortable with this, kudos to you, i wish i would, but i'm not. I also don't like the hi jacking of Canadian values by a PM who hold a minority of the popular vote, but that might be another more general topic...

    What hijacking? You're right, that's a different topic.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    thankyougrandma wrote:
    UN are controlled by the USA right now, it's diplomatic blocking, same thing that happen in Rwanda but with different actors, sickening...

    Actually, this last time, it was France and a few other countries who pulled the plug. For once the Americans were at the table!
  • thankyougrandma
    thankyougrandma Posts: 1,182
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Actually, this last time, it was France and a few other countries who pulled the plug. For once the Americans were at the table!

    that's what i'm saying, different actors, same results. UN security council is innefective...
    "L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
    -Jean-Jacques Rousseau
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    thankyougrandma wrote:
    that's what i'm saying, different actors, same results. UN security council is innefective...

    Yes, yes, it truly is. That gets proven everytime people in one of these countries get massacred. Rwanda, Sudan, Lebanon ... The list rolls on.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    there should be a new UN ... no agenda ... no vetoes ... majority rules ...
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    polaris wrote:
    there should be a new UN ... no agenda ... no vetoes ... majority rules ...

    Although if that happened, Israel really would get a raw deal ...
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    I think I am in a bad mood today ... Everything political message I see today on this campus looks terribly biased.
  • thankyougrandma
    thankyougrandma Posts: 1,182
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Although if that happened, Israel really would get a raw deal ...

    they'd get what the majority think is right... i guess that's how it should be, as Polaris said, no agendas.

    But the UN must get involve to predict these conflict and settle the "hot" sector of the planet BEFORE crisis like this one happen (not all predictable, but sometimes it is), in this crisis it would have mean pressure for the recognition of both Israel and Palestine, pushing for the disarm of Hezbollah, anyway UN is light year from that... maybe they should base their headquarters in another country, that could also help in my opinion...
    "L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
    -Jean-Jacques Rousseau
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    thankyougrandma wrote:
    they'd get what the majority think is right... i guess that's how it should be, as Polaris said, no agendas.

    But the UN must get involve to predict these conflict and settle the "hot" sector of the planet BEFORE crisis like this one happen (not all predictable, but sometimes it is), in this crisis it would have mean pressure for the recognition of both Israel and Palestine, pushing for the disarm of Hezbollah, anyway UN is light year from that... maybe they should base their headquarters in another country, that could also help in my opinion...

    Majority rule can be a dangerous thing, as much as I support the idea of democracy. That's why every democracy ideally has checks and balances against abuses of power by the majority.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    reborncareerist wrote:
    I think I am in a bad mood today ... Everything political message I see today on this campus looks terribly biased.

    leaning towards where??

    i do not think israel would get screwed if there was no agenda ...
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    polaris wrote:
    there should be a new UN ... no agenda ... no vetoes ... majority rules ...
    Majority rules with no Bill of Rights to look after minority interests would be a bloodshed. Israel would be the lamb the wolves devour.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    surferdude wrote:
    Majority rules with no Bill of Rights to look after minority interests would be a bloodshed. Israel would be the lamb the wolves devour.

    sure ... add a bill of rights but i still don't see how israel would get shafted ...
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    listening to mackay on the radio ... its tragic ... why not use your words to promote a ceasefire or peace ... instead of continuing the same useless rhetoric about hezbollah this ... let me quote ... "the carnage in lebanon" is how he put it ... israel is responsible for that "carnage" - why not ask them to show some restraint??
  • thankyougrandma
    thankyougrandma Posts: 1,182
    surferdude wrote:
    Majority rules with no Bill of Rights to look after minority interests would be a bloodshed. Israel would be the lamb the wolves devour.

    There are rules, there's the universal human rights declaration and that should never be overpassed (i mean in my utopic UN). Maybe having each country having an ELECTED UN members, would help to really have a said country's voice instead of someone who's appointed/named by each country.
    "L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
    -Jean-Jacques Rousseau
  • thankyougrandma
    thankyougrandma Posts: 1,182
    polaris wrote:
    listening to mackay on the radio ... its tragic ... why not use your words to promote a ceasefire or peace ... instead of continuing the same useless rhetoric about hezbollah this ... let me quote ... "the carnage in lebanon" is how he put it ... israel is responsible for that "carnage" - why not ask them to show some restraint??

    see, they send Mackay and he's gaffe prone, that's why the PM should be on tv, not letting his foreign minister take the heat alone. It seem like the Harper's strategy, to sacrifice his MP's instead of taking the heat... see Michael Fortier at the Outgames (and Fortier said he'll vote for the current gay marriage law to stay as it is, meaning he'll vote against the Cons.)
    "L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
    -Jean-Jacques Rousseau
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    thankyougrandma wrote:
    see, they send Mackay and he's gaffe prone, that's why the PM should be on tv, not letting his foreign minister take the heat alone. It seem like the Harper's strategy, to sacrifice his MP's instead of taking the heat... see Michael Fortier at the Outgames (and Fortier said he'll vote for the current gay marriage law to stay as it is, meaning he'll vote against the Cons.)

    I'll admit that McKay is more gaffe-prone than Harper .... Still don't know why this is such a big deal, though.
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    thankyougrandma wrote:
    see Michael Fortier at the Outgames (and Fortier said he'll vote for the current gay marriage law to stay as it is, meaning he'll vote against the Cons.)
    It will be a free vote, meaning the Conservatives have taken no official stance other than to open the legislation to a free vote. I think you'll be surprised at how many Conservatives will vote to allow gay marriage.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • thankyougrandma
    thankyougrandma Posts: 1,182
    reborncareerist wrote:
    I'll admit that McKay is more gaffe-prone than Harper .... Still don't know why this is such a big deal, though.

    well, i'm not crying alone in a corner over this issue, hehe, just discussing it, it's not THAT big, it's just bad in my opinion...
    "L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
    -Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Categories