Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

This just in: Canada screws itself up royally

M

Marril

New Member
For those of you who don't know, there was a federal election today in Canada. For those of you who don't know, we somehow managed to elect a Conservative government (thankfully a minority, I don't know what I'd do if it was a Conservative majority).

The good news for America is, Stephen Harper and Dubya Bush share a lot in common, so Canada should become a "mini America" of sorts over the next while. The bad news for Canada is, we had to elect someone who's going to impose a lot of bad legislation on the country.

So, you know, I might have to change my "From:" location to either Mini America or Jesusland North. Certainly that's what we'll become under such a terrible leader.
 
Dude, Harper's already declared he's going to put the *** marriage issue back to a vote before commons, which of course means he's going to somehow get it taken out when we've finally made a step forwards in that regard.

Hopefully the provincial governments can overrule that in at least a few provinces and keep it in. It's a terrible thing to take such a large step backwards as to vote for conservatism.
 
The people spoke... is that a bad thing when the people get to voice their opinion in an election? i am quite curious, cause last time i checked, the people are what ruled a country(unless the country is controlled by tyrants) but may your country flourish with the new leadership!
 
Marril said:
For those of you who don't know, there was a federal election today in Canada. For those of you who don't know, we somehow managed to elect a Conservative government (thankfully a minority, I don't know what I'd do if it was a Conservative majority).

The good news for America is, Stephen Harper and Dubya Bush share a lot in common, so Canada should become a "mini America" of sorts over the next while. The bad news for Canada is, we had to elect someone who's going to impose a lot of bad legislation on the country.

So, you know, I might have to change my "From:" location to either Mini America or Jesusland North. Certainly that's what we'll become under such a terrible leader.
Click to expand...

I'll vote for Jesusland North .................... :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

I think you mean that Canada can now start to mend and repair it's badly abused relationship with our American brothers (and sisters) to the south :thumb: who deserve a better neighbor than Canada has been.

Funny how you consider this Canada screwing it's self up royally :mad::nonono:

Fortunately marijuana won't be legalized now :lol:
Actually I'm serious it would have been legalized if the Conservatives didn't win :nonono: :nonono:



:pokeball:
 
Well, it would be all fine and dandy if democracy worked even a tenth as well in practice as it does in theory. The problem is people are stupid. They only saw the Liberal sponsorship scandal and, despite that they were cleared on innumerable issues about it, the Conservatives just kept up their defamation of the Liberal party and it worked. People believed them and didn't even think about their votes.

It also doesn't help that the Conservatives are hypocritical to the extremes. They committed numerous instances of what can only be called libel to the Liberal party, and when the Liberals distributed a few ads that showed the Conservatives in a negative light, they lashed at them like it was the end of the world. Now, I'm not saying the Liberals are saints (personally I prefer the NDP, but to continue...), but the Conservatives seek only to do the American capitalist dream: to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Rest assured, Canada will only "flourish" in the eyes of the Americans if you're a Republican.

There really needs to be an intelligence test required to vote. The masses cannot be trusted to make an intelligent decision when it's been proven time and again throughout history that leaders can sway the public opinion to whatever belief they want for purely selfish ends.

Conservatives brought us such horrible things as GST and NAFTA. I'm just waiting to see what happens this time.
 
Last edited:
Since when does an elected official have to represent the majority? If few people vote, then it's very easy for an individual to get elected who DOESN'T represent the majority. Look at Bush, he certainly didn't have the "will of the people" behind him when he got elected.

Don't assume an elected official is the will of the people.

Also, myn, look into elite theory, you might be shocked.

Elite theory shows that the elite rule, not the people.
 
Elected officials don't represent the majority, at least not in a capitalistic nation. That's the problem, human nature allows for all manner of foul leaders to get in, sometimes by force and sometimes by clever deception of the electoral process.

As they said in Star Wars Episode III, "This is democracy ends, with thunderous applause." Only, you know, less democracy and more lame pseudo-democracy.
 
Sceptilious said:
I think you mean that Canada can now start to mend and repair it's badly abused relationship with our American brothers (and sisters) to the south :thumb: who deserve a better neighbor than Canada has been.

Funny how you consider this Canada screwing it's self up royally :mad::nonono:

Fortunately marijuana won't be legalized now :lol:
Actually I'm serious it would have been legalized if the Conservatives didn't win :nonono: :nonono:

:pokeball:
Click to expand...
Only if all the marijuana smoker would have remebered to vote!?!?!!!!
I realy didn't want to see Conservatives elected, I just wonder how long untill all Canadians recive prosparity Checks!?! >.<

Also you need to remeber that Canadian elections work quite abit diffrently then your american counterparts. But as long our beef is Unbanned and our lumber is good, and you stay away from our waters. And leave our soverinty alone, I'll be happy.
Hey, this means Alberta only pays 5% taxes XD

Ps. if i could have voted, I would have went NDP or NPD, or whatever it is in english...
 
Last edited:
Myn_donos said:
The people spoke... is that a bad thing when the people get to voice their opinion in an election? i am quite curious, cause last time i checked, the people are what ruled a country(unless the country is controlled by tyrants) but may your country flourish with the new leadership!
Click to expand...
The fact that a majority supports something doesn't make it right. What if 80 percent of Canadians vote to kill the other 20 percent? It is a fallacy to assume that the "conservatives" (or anyone who can win an election) are good just because they won an election.
Marril said:
There really needs to be an intelligence test required to vote. The masses cannot be trusted to make an intelligent decision when it's been proven time and again throughout history that leaders can sway the public opinion to whatever belief they want for purely selfish ends.
Click to expand...
Some people like to think that an election is like a math problem: the more people you have working on it, the more likely you are to get the right answer. I don't agree. What if the people are stupid?

That's exactly what happens here in the US. People keep on voting for candidates who give them larger and larger government, even though a great majority of Americans say they want smaller government. The people are uninformed. Many of them don't know enough about the candidates to make a logical decision.
There are plenty of activists out there trying to get people (especially young people) to vote. And though, I believe their cause is respectable, it's not going to do any good if these voters aren't informed. It's not going to do any good if these voters don't know anything about the candidates (or the constitution, or government in general).
I am saddened by the fact that many people believe things like:
1. Marijuana has killed thousand of Americans.
2. The words, "Separation of church and state" are in the US Constitution.
3. The federal government has the power to dictate to the States what their policy on abortion will be; the Constitution gives the Supreme Court legislative power.
4. The Civil War was fought primarily because of slavery.
5. US currency has always been fiat currency.
6. Hitler was not elected.
7. The World Trade Center and Pentagon were attacked by Iraqis.
8. Everyone can fit into the one-dimensional liberal/conservative spectrum.
9. The US government is not deficit spending.
10. Monopolies exist because of greedy rich people, not because of the government.
11. The fact that Republicans and Democrats oppose each other means that they are opposites; not similar in any way.
12. There has always been an income tax in America.

People who don’t know enough to make an intelligent decision are expected to do so.
I'm no expert on Canada, but I know that voter stupidity is a problem in the US.
 
Last edited:
30% of Americans of voting age can't find the United States on a World map. ~60% can't find Iraq.

Are these really the kind of people we want voting for our next president or Senate? Do you know how many americans know where their Senators stand on important issues like, abortion, Homosexual marriage, stemcell research, and others? The number is tiny. It's so small that it rivals Planks Length as far as small measurements go.*

Stupid people vote. Politicians encourage it. Stupid people elect corupt politicians because they are too clueless to think ahead and concider their choices.


*Major props to anyone that got that.
 
See, that's why good ol' Dubya gets into office, because he can persuade idiot hicks who base their vote entirely on the homosexual marraige issue to vote for him (I'm exaggerating a tad but you get the idea).

America certainly has it worse, but then again, Canada was doing a fine job of keeping itself as an independant country. Now, well, I really wish I was joking about the "Mini America" and "Jesusland North" stuff. Also, speaking of "Jesusland North," I positively love how the entire religious right cannot comprehend the fact that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, especially their Kristian hack-job of Christ's teachings (I've been reading a bit much of Roedy Green, sue me).
 
ninetales1234 said:
I am saddened by the fact that many people believe things like:

4. The Civil War was fought primarily because of slavery.
Click to expand...

Careful there...the "many people" who believe this currently include the vast majority of the scholarly historical community, including those members of the Center for the Study of the American South. Did you forget a "not" in there, or is your information outdated?

I'd highly recommend doing some secondary source research. Among the books you'll want to check out are:

Foner, Eric. Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Morrison, Michael A. Slavery and the American West: The Eclipse of Manifest Destiny and the Coming of the Civil War Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997.

Stampp, Kenneth M. ed. The Causes of the Civil War. New York: Touchstone, 1991.

Boritt, Gabor S. ed. Why the Civil War Came. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Dew, Charles B. Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2001.


Jacob Burt
Department of History
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
 
Last edited:
The Civil War was fought mostly over expansion and economic issues, of which slavery was a part. However, slavery was only introduced as a major issue in the war when Britain and France were siding with the Confederates, and Lincoln wanted them to stay out of the "conflict" as he called it. In that way, the Emancipation Proclimation was introduced in order to keep the foreigns out of the war, making sure that it would be America vs America on this particular conflict.

Depending on the way that a person looks at the various facts leading up to the Civil War, it can be shown that it was based on one thing or another. Slavery was definately an issue, but I'm not completely certain that it was the ONLY issue in that war.
 
You mean that the Lincoln-Douglas debate never happened and was retroactively created to throw England off the trail????
You mean the political battles that were fought before the Civil War to keep slavery out of new terratories and states didn't happen?
Wow. Revisionist history is fun.

Sure, economics was a big part of why the South wanted to keep slavery. Cheap labor.
Would you say that people's opposition to sweatshops and child labor in Asia and South America is "just economic"? I mean, there is an economic component, but isn't human rights a big part?

Sheesh.
 
Of course, this thread is supposed to be about the Canadian elections, and so I'll apologize in advance for exacerbating (starting?) the thread-hijacking based upon the civil war comments of ninetails et al. Still, though, it's an issue that is obviously quite hotbutton. Bullados, reread the initial issue carefully. The question is not whether or not there were other factors in addition to slavery which precipitated the Civil War - I would think that in anything as complicated as a war, myriad causes would be considered a given. The question is whether or not slavery was the primary issue at the center of the civil war. As of the current historiographical trend, there are very, very few people of my field who would agree with you and ninetails that economics and expansion should take precedence in our focus over the issue of slavery. Be forewarned that, by arguing that, you are drawing from badly outdated scholarship and do so against the grain of historical consensus. Still, though, feel free to make that argument (perhaps in a thread dedicated to the topic, rather than in the Canadian elections one, which we're being overtly obnoxious by ignoring...but then again, Americans have been ignoring Canada forever...that we're talking about the distinctly US-centric issue of the Civil War in the middle of this thread is deeply ironic in itself, and reflective of the broader problem foreign countries have with our insular, arrogant selves).

That brought it back around neatly to Canada and foreign relations. Carry on, all!

Jacob Burt
Department of History
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
 
Marril said:
As they said in Star Wars Episode III, "This is democracy ends, with thunderous applause." Only, you know, less democracy and more lame pseudo-democracy.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked, the prequel trilogy wasn't source of great insight nor introspection about modern society.

I feel sorry for the school of political thought that lauds the 'political commentary' of the man who brought us Jar-Jar, Ewoks, an inconsistant storyline, and Anakin Skywalker (both I'm a real boy and pouty teenage angst lips versions)
 
Flaming_Spinach said:
Do you know how many americans know where their Senators stand on important issues like, abortion, Homosexual marriage, stemcell research, and others? The number is tiny
Click to expand...
How many Americans even know who their Senators are? I don't remember the source, but I once saw a poll that showed almost half of Americans over 18 could not name either of their Senators.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top