Former Canadian PM MSG to Blatham

Hmmmm----then who in the hell do you ever vote for?

I suspect that Canajuns do what most decent Americans do, shudder, and then vote for the one who appears to be the least of all the evils presented.

LOL---one of your postings that I can agree with. One of the most disgusting aspects of trying to entice the electorate to vote for you is being evidenced by the current crop of Dem candidates. Each one is conducting their own little poll of what the most influential group wants to hear and then tayloring their message to that group with total disregard for what they would actually do if elected-- IMO.

Perc--



We should show them how it's done.

Just move the furniture.

(I liked Mulroney.)
---------
Some Senator (I think they described her/him) said, "We're not sheriffs!"
I think Bush had referred to Oz as a sheriff in the war on terror. So, Bush stood there and listened to her. She recieved a couple of warnings from the Imperial Oz Guy, and wouldn't shut up, and was thrown out.

Bush was smiling, and said, "I love freedom of speech." The crowd roared approval. Maybe if Oz can overcome their embarrassing law about only Ozzians being PM, Bush can Preside there when he's done here! They just love him! How sweet!! :wink:

Well, I must agree with Setanta and perception on agreeing that yep, it comes down to the lesser evil. Mind you, that is the reason I don't vote often.

Sofia

Thanks for pointing out that Bush was smiling and said " I love freedom of speech".

Regarding Mulroney I wasn't much interested in Canadian politics then---I was having too much fun just having fun.

If Bush retired to become PM in OZ bunny might start smoking a cigar.

Cav, i found very interesting an article which i read in one of the t.o. neighborhood papers (for East York) about the New Democrats demanding that the new provincial government give them party privileges, despite having fallen below the percentage horizon. Their argument was that many New Democrats had voted Liberal for sake of turning out the Tories, and that the NDP had supported the effort to get rid of Tory government. Basically, they were saying that party status in the Provincial assembly was the quid pro quo. It was a very interesting insight into why people vote the way they do, and the consequences of that voting.

cav - my rule is - you've got to vote if you want to talk about politics.

Sometimes that means I end up voting for some odd characters - just to get the right to complain. In the last municipal election here I voted for Enza, the tallest free-standing transexual supermodel in the world. At least she had a platform and campaigned.

I'm a bit worried about what I'm going to do in the next federal election. I can't abide Paul Martin, the p.c./reform melding probably won't be complete yet, the NDP don't appear to have a platform (or a leader who can find his/her way in front of an issue). It's going to involve some soul-searching on my part. I may have to vote Rhinocerus again.

I'm voting for the marijana party.
At least the stand for something I believe in...
he he he

Y'know, for somone who has so often and so loudly claimed that those outside the US don't understand our politics and shouldn't criticize the government, I wonder at your beginning this thread, percy. Especially in light of the tirades you have launched at Blatham and Walter in recent months. Perhaps, as an "American," you may not have a complete grasp on Cana'jun politics and are not fit to comment, eh?

I could take or leave the guy, but what the hell exactly would be wrong with that, up there?

If you wore undershirts (photographic evidence in this forum suggests you don't ) you'd understand the necessity of tucking them in.

To keep them from crawling up your back. :wink:

I thought briefs where what lawyers wear.

Yup

Hobit

If you don't "get" the connection between me, Blatham, and an ex-Canadian PM who just gave a speech that any conservative would be proud of then perhaps you should go back to school and learn the American version of English instead of the Libyian version.

perception - i'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the canajun conservative party is actually not conservative in the sense that one might think of the republican party being conservative. it's an old name for the party, and it no longer matches the party well. The conservatives are the 'big government' party, and the liberals are the 'big business' party. Now, things may change as the conservative party is being folded into the reform party - but right now, the conservatives here are a bit to the left of the liberals.

LOL ehBeth I couldn't handle that ---- small wonder Blatham is so confused about American politics. :wink:

perception - from our angle, american politics is all tiny degrees of right. it's comparatively simple to keep track of. seriously. just look at the number of parties we have in the federal parliament - and then other parties running and represented in various provinces. we've got nothing on the number of german political parties, but we've got good variety on offer.

The tricky part to U.S. politics to me, occasionally, is spotting who is more 'conservative' on various issues. It's definitely not a straight line down the centre, with everything split out evenly.

The concepts of the 'big two' parties seem to be held on to for the sake of belonging to, or for tradition of the party. A tough mold to break in the US, never seems to be room for another one to wiggle in and get traction. I guess this forces a degree of moderation in each party, which is good.

I'll have to disagree with that, Brand X.

Or at least I'll say that my perception of it is different. It often seems to me that the two big parties in the U.S. are actually so similar in their true practice, that the proponents of each become quite extreme in attempting to prove their differences. It's like mauve saying it's blue, and lavender saying it's red, when everyone knows they're both purple. Mauve gets desperate trying to prove its blueness and non-redness, while lavender gets frantic looking for its inner-redness and tries to hide evidence of any blue, and the on-lookers keep saying - but you're both purple - get over it already!

When there is another candidate around - whether it's Ross Perot, Jerry Falwell or Ralph Nader - the two big parties are usually on the same, other, side. I'm guessing it would make debating difficult - trying to tease out those tiny differences.

Actually I think we agreed, the hardened idea's of both parties are different, but the reality of moderation makes them look more similar. I was thinking that anyway. :wink: