# In reply to all the liberal bashing



## rz350 (31 Aug 2006)

There is a lot of liberal bashing going on. Some of it is warranted, some of it is not.

here is a few of the things the Liberal party gave to Canada.

The right for gays to marry. (civil liberty which involves no harm to anyone and is 100% consensual..opposed by the conservatives)

The charter of Rights and Freedoms. (what a horrible thing for a nation, a list of rights and freedoms deemed inalienable!)

Our Constitution. (Which together with the Charter, is the really only legal instrument protecting individual rights. Before that, any law which seemed oppressive or heavy handed had to be challenged only on technical merit.)

Just my opinion, but the freedom and rights we enjoy are one of the things that make Canada so great, and worth defending to the end. Although it was a free nation before the charter and constitution, they entrenched and enshrined the freedoms.

Our own flag.   Under Liberal Prime Minister Pearson.

The Royal Canadian Navy. In a bill Enacted by Sir Willfrid Laurier in 1910.

The Canada pension plan.

Universal health care.

I just figured, with so many threads showing the negative of the Liberal party, I would show a few of the good things they have done for the nation.


----------



## paracowboy (31 Aug 2006)

> In reply to all the liberal bashing


well done. Carry on.


----------



## Kat Stevens (31 Aug 2006)

Six good things in 139 years.... Keep up the stellar job.

PS  Health care was an idea stolen from Tommy Douglas, and at the time almost every doctor in Sask mutinied.


----------



## Kalatzi (31 Aug 2006)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Six good things in 139 years.... Keep up the stellar job.



In response to Kat's extravagent praise 
The Auto Pact - The forefather of Nafta(Regardless of how one feels about it)
Bilingualism - Leading to the Bloc
The National Energy Policy - Leading to the Reform Party!

Laurier maintaining Canada's identity in the face of Brit Imperialism
Pearson/Trudeau doing the same in the face of Yank Imperialsim 
LBJ to Pearson - You pissed on my rug!
Pearson The father of Peacekkeping 

Oooh, Ohhh - The Avro Arrow and the Canadian Aerospace Industry!!!
Killed off by  :skull:

 :dontpanic:


----------



## Cloud Cover (31 Aug 2006)

Kalatzi said:
			
		

> Oooh, Ohhh - The Avro Arrow and the Canadian Aerospace Industry!!!
> Killed off by   .


... Diefenbaker, a Conservative

Here's a few Conservative mementos:

Failure to stop and reverse an activist court in the the 10 years after the Charter was passed.
Gutting the aerospace industry everywhere in Canada except Quebec;
Meech Lake and BQ;
Failure to prosecute criminal politicians for overt theft of taxpayers money;
7 consecutive years of increased income taxes;
Tan DEU's with the disco pants look;
ALCOA with Ontario's money; 
Failing to criminalize large, goofy looking eyeglasses;  
GST


----------



## aluc (31 Aug 2006)

Brian Mulroney.......the reason we now have to look at Ben Mulroney on TV making an ass of himself.


----------



## cplcaldwell (31 Aug 2006)

Well to counterpoint the counterpoint.(Just for fun mind you).

The right for gays to marry is important. It's kind of dumb to suggest that people can't share pension or health benefits, adopt a child, buy a car jointly or have to form a limited compnay to buy a house jointly. 

But we (IMHO) screwed this up. The Brits did a better job of it by making the State's role in 'marriage' to be zero and left the word to the churches, mosques and synagogues. We should have made it 'civil union' for all (gay and hetero) at the legal level and left the 'marriage' part to the people who have used and defined the term for 5000 years. 

The Charter? I like to look at it this way, before the Charter I had every right in the world until the elected Parliament passed a law to take it way from me, now I have no rights unless an appointed judge affirms them (Forget who said that, it's a bit simplistic, but hey, WTF). Nothing more inalienable than the democratic will. Besides, Dief gave us the statutory Bill of Rights in the 50's

The Constitution, we've had that since 1867, (arguably since 1763) just by a different name, bringing it home was nice, but it hasn't made gas any cheaper.

Flag's a good idea. 

RCN created by the Libs, dissolved by the Libs. This one is a wash.

CPP? $1050 a month is nice but not much to brag about. Buy RRSP's.

Medicare. Hmmm here the old adage "Success has many fathers...." rings true. Mr Douglas adopted this in SK in the 50's (CCF/NDP). Dief talked about and studied it after the '57 election. Justice Hall (PC) reported that that should be extended to all of Canada, 1964 (?). Mr Pearson and Mr Martin (Sr) passed it into law. A thouroughly Canadian solution.

Any way rz350, thanks for coming out, but I'm just way too old to learn a new trick. Canadian politics are a lot less polemic and a lot more evolutionary than most people would think. The Liberal no more 'rule' than the Tories 'suck' or vice versa. Heck even the NDP are good for some things......

*Now for that Arrow thing*. Why does this still keep coming up? The thing was a long range interceptor, the Soviets had just invented their ICBM, Interceptors became obsolete. What we should have kept it? Kill it cut it up, it would have been useless and expensive by the time it was mass produced...

HaHa all in fun ....


----------



## Kalatzi (31 Aug 2006)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> *Now for that Arrow thing*. Why does this still keep coming up?



At the risk of getting waaaaay off topic, A/the friend of mine once opined that what makes us distinct as a nation is ability to bicker endlessly amongst ourselves. 

Not sure that he's 100% on but pretty close, and the Arrow meech et are but two examples


----------



## cplcaldwell (31 Aug 2006)

Your friend is a very perceptive individual!


----------



## North Star (31 Aug 2006)

OK:

1) Right for Gays to Marry - Done quickly and cheaply without building consensus. May have ended up threatening the Right to Practice Religion and has now opened up questions as to Polygamy and the Tax Exemptions of Churches. 

2) Charter of Rights and Freedoms - How come everyone forgets Diefenbacker's Bill of Rights, which set the stage for this? Trudeau didn't think it up by his lonesome. Thank you Western Canada

3) The Flag - Cheesiest in the world. 

4) RCN - Then transformed into Maritime Command over the careers of a number of Admirals. Then wasted away through neglect. 

5) CPP - Don't forget the QPP! Some National program.

6) Universal Healthcare - Yes. What an accomplishment. We used to laugh at the Soviets for lining up for sausages at the grocery store. Now, we line up for hip replacements and consider it Canada's most brilliant civic accomplishment. 

7) Peacekeeping - Not a bad idea when originally created, but completely abused as a nation-building myth by the Liberals to denigrate the CF.

I think a friend of mine best sums it up...."Yes, I do like Liberals...prior to Pearson."


----------



## Loachman (31 Aug 2006)

The lieberals did not give gays the right to marry. They merely let the Supreme court rule and then lacked the guts to debate the issue in Parliament. That's just a copout. And marriage isn't a right. It's a religious practice, combined in modern times with a legal contract.

It's a Charter of SOME Rights and Freedoms. Extra "rights" can be and have been written in by the Supreme Court. Others have been trampled by the legal system and that has been upheld, in many cases, by the Supreme Court. They're far from being "inalienable". Ask victims of the Terrorism Act, or the Firearms Act upon which many of the worst aspects of the former were based. Property rights were intentionally left out, which is a huge ommission.

Constitutions are indeed nice - the former USSR had a very impressive one.

This country is far less free thanks to the lieberals - in addition to the aforementioned two examples of odious lieberal legislative malignance, there have been a succession of gag laws aimed at limiting the free speech of citizens during elections, in which you and I have been described as "third parties".

Canada had a flag before the current one, under which our veterans served, fought and died with pride. Is it a co-incidence that the current one is in the same colours as the lieberal party insignia? Maybe, maybe not. It's a decent flag, though, and I like it anyway.

The Royal Canadian Navy? On the other hand, there's the abomination of Unification and the demise of the same Navy and the other two services. We still suffer from this today.

The Canada Pension Plan is faltering and chances are you'll get nothing useful from it, despite paying through the nose.

Universal health care isn't, breeds mediocrity, inefficiency, waste, and huge line-ups. Besides, it wasn't a lieberal idea, and health care is provincial jurisdiction anyway.

Now, can you please list the good things that the lieberal party has done for Canada?


----------



## cplcaldwell (31 Aug 2006)

North Star said:
			
		

> 6) Universal Healthcare - Yes. What an accomplishment. We used to laugh at the Soviets for lining up for sausages at the grocery store. Now, we line up for hip replacements and consider it Canada's most brilliant civic accomplishment.



 :rofl:


----------



## Armymedic (31 Aug 2006)

I believe if you were to study more Canadian history, you'd find that most often good things the Liberals have done were someone else's ideas. 
Trudeau was a member of the NDP prior to becoming the liberal Justice minister.
Tommy Douglas had many good ideas which won him much popular support across the country, and if the Person Govt didn't implement, may have won the NDP a government in the late 60's



			
				rz350 said:
			
		

> The right for gays to marry. (civil liberty which involves no harm to anyone and is 100% consensual..opposed by the conservatives)


No, the Supreme Court of Canada gave the legal right for them to marry. Nobody has a really good reason for them not to...


> The charter of Rights and Freedoms. (what a horrible thing for a nation, a list of rights and freedoms deemed inalienable!)
> Our Constitution. (Which together with the Charter, is the really only legal instrument protecting individual rights. Before that, any law which seemed oppressive or heavy handed had to be challenged only on technical merit.)


Trudeau...OK, he got us the Charter of rights, not really an new idea, but he did get it put into place. I give you one point for that. But the constitution, he hardly can take credit for. We are just lucky that the provincial premiers signed on to it, or that goose would be cooked.


> The Royal Canadian Navy. In a bill Enacted by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1910.


Ooh, he signed a piece of paper, enacting the Navy...who did it for the RCAF, or the Army?


> The Canada pension plan.


Tommy Douglas had ideas for universal pension plans in Sask in the late 40's for farmers to pay into so that when they got too old to farm, they did not become burdens on their families and the province.


> Universal health care.


Again something the CCP gave Sask before Tommy went to Ottawa


> I just figured, with so many threads showing the negative of the Liberal party, I would show a few of the good things they have done for the nation.



How about the new gun registry?
How about the.....?? uhm? 

I am sure your getting the point for all the posts above. Most of the disgust for the Liberals is what they haven't done for the military, for Canada, an their arrogance towards the rest of us. They believe they should rule, and anyone who doesn't agree with them should not...
The Chretien Gov't did not provide any leadership to the country, and let others, primarily the Supreme court but also the popularity polls, determine what action they should take.

Heaven forbid, somebody makes a decision...that's just Anti-Liberal.


----------



## Cardstonkid (31 Aug 2006)

The Lieberals have taken a dangerous turn in rhetoric over the last ten years. Now you are not a "real" Canadian if you do not agree with Lieberal values. They have become soft-headed and seem to think they can be everything to everyone. That is how you end up with a party under Martin that had at least 50 "Fundamental Priorities." I dislike Trudeau and his Strong Federalist Quebec-centered vision of Canada, but at least he had a vision. You knew where he stood. What has any Lieberal since him stood for? You would have to look at the polls to figure that out. If the environment was in the news they were "leading the way" on that portfolio, if Gay rights were not popular they were against it, if it was popular. they were for it. If gay trees were being mugged on Indian Reserves they were all for or against that, depending if the polls said it was O.K.

The Lieberals led Canada to near collapse under Chretien and Trudeau. The party is a disgrace, despite some bright and honorable men and women who have served Canada in it.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (31 Aug 2006)

Had to laugh at Scott Brison on TV last night bashing Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper for being "anti-Peacekeeping." That's who Canadians are and what they want he said...not this offensive combat stuff we're doing in Afghanistan. We should be putting money into developing communities in these countries etc.
Has anyone told him that there has to be security before you can build community and that we are doing both in Afghanistan?
What a joke. I hope he wins the leadership...it'll ensure another 10 years in the wilderness for the Very Silly Party. ;D


----------



## cplcaldwell (31 Aug 2006)

ArmyMedic said:
			
		

> Heaven forbid, somebody makes a decision...that's just Anti-Liberal.



And if its anti-Liberal then it must be Conservative. 

And if its Conservative then it must be neo-con, bible thumping, baby Bush, imperialist, running dog fascism. > (Read the blogs on the Globe and Mail some day, they are so sad they are hilarious.)

_or in other words,_ 

Cardstonkid, *+1*


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (31 Aug 2006)

Well for all the Lib's out there, please stick with nostalgia because your current leaders are a bunch of duplicitous, self-serving, hypocritical apologists who I wouldn't trust to mow my lawn!


Matthew.


----------



## rz350 (31 Aug 2006)

I don't know what the Lieberal party is.

When I voted, the Ballot had the Liberal party of Canada. The Conservative party, the New Democratic party and the Communist party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) at least in my riding, there was no Lieberal party.  ;D I dont see it on elections Canada website either.

About the RCN, was it not a Conservative who ditched the idea of Nuclear Submarines? (along with not taking Chinooks) and a Liberal who at least got them Diesel Subs? (maybe not the best of subs, but still subs)

And a Conservative gov't who put in the GST. Only to be lowered by 1% by the next Conservative govt. 

Maybe the Supreme court allowed gays to be married, but at least the Liberals did not try to introduce legislation ban it. Like someone else did.


----------



## Trinity (31 Aug 2006)

Loachman said:
			
		

> The lieberals did not give gays the right to marry. They merely let the Supreme court rule and then lacked the guts to debate the issue in Parliament. That's just a copout. And marriage isn't a right. It's a religious practice, combined in modern times with a legal contract.



Um.. I would debate that...

Marriage was a contract/property transaction at first.  The woman was property of her father.

Later in years marriages could be blessed by the church.... and then eventually
marriages became a religions service.


----------



## cplcaldwell (31 Aug 2006)

It was a conservative who ditched the idea of nuclear submarines, after floating the idea into a barrage of Liberal opposition freaking, that, among other things, claimed that nuclear _powered_ submarines somehow violated Canada's cherished non nuclear _weapon_ status.

But then again it was a Liberal PM who approved of the Nuke warheads for the Bomarcs too.(Who said he would never kowtow to American pressure)

The GST replaced the MFST and it was a good thing because it gave Canadian industry a break in the Canadian Market. (Mulroney made it an election promise and got elected with it as a plank in his platform). It was cut to free up some tax space for the provinces (As promised by Harper)so they could take the responsibility for all their schemes without having the alternative of decrying federal miserliness on transfers (Rather a swift move there Stevie, way to go, shut up the masses while shutting up the provinces, nice feat for a federal PM!).

Who tried to ban it? AB? so what, it's a constitutionally provincial prerogative, if they want to live like red-necks, all I can say is welcome to a confederacy.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Aug 2006)

Lieberals - politicians who use the party platform (a la 'Red Book') to buy the Canadian public's vote. Once in power, simply disregard all promises as being ludicrous and unworkable. Mostly broken when speaking of not increasing taxes. Flat out lies = Lieberal. See -  'the little thug from Shawinigan (Cretin) federal, and Dolton MsQuinty, provincial


----------



## cplcaldwell (31 Aug 2006)

Aw come on recceguy, "Lieberal" pre-dates the Red Book.

*"I will never enact Wage and Price Controls"*

...

*"Zap! You're frozen!" *


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Aug 2006)

The Red Book was but a recent example  Even though they used the same one in two elections ;D


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 Aug 2006)

>The charter of Rights and Freedoms. (what a horrible thing for a nation, a list of rights and freedoms deemed inalienable!)

We already had a Bill of Rights, regardless whether one deemed it sufficiently effective, and the Charter itself is by some measures deficient.  A more powerful but deficient body of law is not necessarily a leap forward.

>Our Constitution.

A constitution is just the instruction set for government.  We had those before the 1982 Act.  What we have now isn't necessarily better just because it's newer and is an act of our Parliament.

>Our own flag.

Whose flag did we have before?  Would it be a noteworthy achievement if we changed it again?

>The Royal Canadian Navy.

Uh.  So what?

>The Canada pension plan.

Again, so what?

>Universal health care.

Don't confuse "rationed" with "universal".  We didn't need what we have now in order to provide health care for those least able to afford it, and it has proven to be quite the millstone around our necks in any attempt to move forward.

Each of the six items listed arguably has its good points, but it's helpful to bear in mind the deficiencies and irrelevancies as well.  I'm sure we can find reasons to laud and excuses to deplore our governments at all levels and of all factions, but there is also this to observe: a political party would be worthy of acclaim if it did nothing that was repugnant and at least something that was good.  So far we have a complete shortage of those.


----------



## rz350 (31 Aug 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Each of the six items listed arguably has its good points, but it's helpful to bear in mind the deficiencies and irrelevancies as well.  I'm sure we can find reasons to laud and excuses to deplore our governments at all levels and of all factions, but there is also this to observe: a political party would be worthy of acclaim if it did nothing that was repugnant and at least something that was good.  So far we have a complete shortage of those.



Agreed, but all I ever hear is liberal bashing and conservative praising. The liberals did some bone headed things, and some good things. Same for the Conservatives. But the sonservatives have enough defense on this site that I don't need to any. The liberals do not, si I though I would add some.


----------



## HDE (31 Aug 2006)

The Army.ca website is largely a site discussing military issues so it probably shouldn't be a surprise that the Liberal record on military matters is a priority.


Howzabout "In reply to all the liberal bashing...consider some of the Liberal accomplishments on military matters...

That'd make for an interesting discussion


----------



## rmacqueen (31 Aug 2006)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> No, the Supreme Court of Canada gave the legal right for them to marry. Nobody has a really good reason for them not to.



Actually, I would like to point out that the supreme court didn't actually rule on the gay marriage issue as it was never challenged beyond the provincial court level.  The Liberals attempted to do an end run around the issue by giving their proposed changes to the SCC but the court didn't buy into it and only said that the changes did not violate the constitution but that it was a political matter at that point so there was nothing to rule on.  The Liberals then embarked on a disinformation campaign that convinced a lot of Canadians that they didn't have a choice.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Our own flag.
> 
> Whose flag did we have before?  Would it be a noteworthy achievement if we changed it again?



Prior to the adoption of the maple leaf we flew what was known as the Red Ensign which had the Union Jack on it and was a derivative of the British Red Ensign


----------



## Eowyn (31 Aug 2006)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> Actually, I would like to point out that the supreme court didn't actually rule on the gay marriage issue as it was never challenged beyond the provincial court level.



Actually it was decided at the Court of Appeal level of several provinces, it was only a matter of time before it got to the SCC.  By the way, the Court of Appeal is several courts higher than a "provincial court".


----------



## rmacqueen (31 Aug 2006)

Eowyn said:
			
		

> Actually it was decided at the Court of Appeal level of several provinces, it was only a matter of time before it got to the SCC.  By the way, the Court of Appeal is several courts higher than a "provincial court".


My mistake.  Still, SCC never actually ruled on it, they are just the excuse.


----------



## Cloud Cover (31 Aug 2006)

Eowyn said:
			
		

> Actually it was decided at the Court of Appeal level of several provinces, it was only a matter of time before it got to the SCC.  By the way, the Court of Appeal is several courts higher than a "provincial court".



To be more precise, the SCC refused to grant leave to appeal at least one of the Court of Appeal decisions, thus endorsing the reasoning, if not the principle.   Eowyn, you know what I mean.


----------



## canadianblue (31 Aug 2006)

I think that some Liberal governments have done some good in Canada, but personally in the past thirty years I think that they have helped divide the country more so then any other political party in Canada. Mostly due to ignorance and misinformation. 

I think we have to overhaul Canada's democracy, but I'm not gonna get too much into it tonight. More or less a Triple E Senate, as well as democratic reform.


----------



## Torlyn (31 Aug 2006)

HDE said:
			
		

> Howzabout "In reply to all the liberal bashing...consider some of the Liberal accomplishments on military matters...



I'm still waiting for someone to tackle this one...  I won't hold my breath.

T


----------



## George Wallace (31 Aug 2006)

Well it was the Conservatives under Mulroney that drove me to the Reform Party.  I still haven't forgiven Mulroney for closing down Lahr and Baden.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (31 Aug 2006)

It is clear that the Liberals have lost their way and they need some time in the wilderness to regroup. Staying in power at all costs, especially at the cost of principle, and governing by populist polls is just not the way to run a great country like this. This party curried favour with a lot of special interest groups in order to maintain power and used our money to bribe voters...not to mention stuffing their friends pockets with taxpayer's money as well.
Of my almost 30 years of service, the Liberals have been in power for 19 of them and they haven't' been a lot of fun for those of us in uniform. The later Tory years were not that great either I have to admit....cutbacks and closing our European Bases.
This new Government is committed to re equipping us and standing behind us. To be fair this was started by the Liberals. But having a Minister of ND who is a former serving officer who understands the CF is a big commitment...one the Liberals were never ready to give us.


----------



## GAP (31 Aug 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well it was the Conservatives under Mulroney that drove me to the Reform Party.  I still haven't forgiven Mulroney for closing down Lahr and Baden.



Yeah, but was that not when the whole western world was extracting the "peace dividend"?


----------



## George Wallace (31 Aug 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Yeah, but was that not when the whole western world was extracting the "peace dividend"?



Peace Dividend!  For Christ sake.  Canada has been extracting the Peace Dividend since 1950.  In the beginning of the 1960's there were 4 full Fighter Wings and a Headquarters in France and Germany.  We don't even have one of those in Canada today.  Each of those Wings had a minimum of three full Sqadrons.  

In Germany there was an Army Bde plus.

Canada had the third largest Navy in the World.

Don't talk about Peace Dividend.

When Mulroney closed down CFE, we pulled back approx 5,000 troops.  At the same time the Americans were pulling 350,000 troops out of Europe, most of them from Germany.  The French finally left Germany at the same time.  The Brits drastically reduced their troop strengths also.  Peace Dividend!..... and people still want more.  We have been decreasing our strength for the past fifty plus years.


----------



## GAP (31 Aug 2006)

You will notice that I did not comment on it one way or the other. All I remember is the BS given for drastic reductions of the military infrastructure, here, the US, Briton, etc. Anybody with an ounce of common sense could realize it was going to come back to bite them.


----------



## Loachman (31 Aug 2006)

rz350 said:
			
		

> The liberals did ... some good things.


You still haven't named any.


----------



## George Wallace (31 Aug 2006)

Loachman said:
			
		

> You still haven't named any.



Well......I call it a mistake......a complete blunder on someone's part........but we did get the Leopard 1 C1 way back in 1977........I know it was a mistake, because usually the Government doesn't procure top of the line equipment for us.......and this time they did.......so it had to be a mistake.   ;D


----------



## toglmonster (31 Aug 2006)

Just one comment. The Liberal party have been in power for most of the past 30 years, look at the state of our armed force.


----------



## Osotogari (31 Aug 2006)

A lot of Liberal bashing?  I should hope so.  Anyone who supports the Liberals and who wears the uniform of the CF is going to have to reconcile one or the other someday.  
Personally, I think that after all the Liberals have done for the country and the military in particular that voting for them is akin to pissing on the Vimy memorial, but that's just me.


----------



## TCBF (1 Sep 2006)

"Now for that Arrow thing. Why does this still keep coming up? The thing was a long range interceptor, the Soviets had just invented their ICBM, Interceptors became obsolete. What we should have kept it? Kill it cut it up, it would have been useless and expensive by the time it was mass produced..."

- Cancelled in 1959, replaced by the CF-101 INTERCEPTOR.  Which needed the Genie and it's nuclear warhead to do it's job.

- Libs wanted nukes.  Walter Gordon, on hearing the US DOE had a NOFORN policy regarding US nukes (DOE owns them, the US military just borrows them) was so mad, he thought we should go back to Plan A, which was to build our own nukes.

- Leopard tanks were bought because the Germans bought our Challenger jets.  Buting US or rebuilding some of our 350 plus Centurians would not have convinced the Germans to buy our planes.  NATO told us to buy tanks or sit in the NATO second row.

- But hey, unification was a big hit, right?

- I liked the tan uniform.  Best uniform in the last 35 years.  We got rid of it because it made fat people look even fatter, and since DEU was dress of the day in Ottawa...

 ;D


----------



## warspite (1 Sep 2006)

toglmonster said:
			
		

> Just one comment. The Liberal party have been in power for most of the past 30 years, look at the state of our armed force.



Hmmm... in the back of my head some gears are starting to grind... I know there is some sort of point I should be realizing ;D


----------



## Kalatzi (1 Sep 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well......I call it a mistake......a complete blunder on someone's part........but we did get the Leopard 1 C1 way back in 1977........I know it was a mistake, because usually the Government doesn't procure top of the line equipment for us.......and this time they did.......so it had to be a mistake.   ;D


How to handle double negatives???
Trudeau originally wanted to replace the Centurion with the Scorpion
Basically a Cougar on tracks - This in early/mid 70's along with a lot of other wind-downs
Would have given the Armour guys something to REALLY compaign about. 
Got to the point that even Jimmy Carter noticed that this wasn't good and applied pressure
Trudeau, more later complained to his foreign sec, "You made me bus those damned tanks"
Even the Toronto sun, hardly a hotbed of liberalism noted that it was a bad move
since at the time Challenger Chobham, the M1 and Leopard 2 were coming online for their respective forces
with a purchase like this we could have done a lot better.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Sep 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well it was the Conservatives under Mulroney that drove me to the Reform Party.  I still haven't forgiven Mulroney for closing down Lahr and Baden.



George, just because your wife is German, and you'd have like to stay there forever, playing both sides of the fence...............a spade is a spade is a spade is a................  ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Sep 2006)

Kalatzi said:
			
		

> How to handle double negatives???
> Trudeau originally wanted to replace the Centurion with the Scorpion
> Basically a Cougar on tracks - This in early/mid 70's along with a lot of other wind-downs
> Would have given the Armour guys something to REALLY compaign about.
> ...



You want to try giving us that in English??


----------



## Kalatzi (1 Sep 2006)

Osotogari said:
			
		

> A lot of Liberal bashing?  I should hope so.  Anyone who supports the Liberals and who wears the uniform of the CF is going to have to reconcile one or the other someday.
> Personally, I think that after all the Liberals have done for the country and the military in particular that voting for them is akin to pissing on the Vimy memorial, but that's just me.


I respect your right to say that
It seems that the Liberals in WW2 did think a lot about WW1
especially about the effect of 66,000 dead  and the effect on the nation
Lets leave the conscription situation outside the scope of this 
Canada declared War as a sovereign nation. 
We decided to get away from Imperial High Command,
Commonwealth air training plan
RCN in North Atlantic
Canadians would only be commited under Canadian Command, with exceptions
(Hong Kong, Dieppe)
Thank that decision for the quantity of brass hats ;D
Before anyone accuses me of being too Liberal
Reserve/attached to RCR service in 70's
... I wanna go to Vietnam/I wanna kill some Viet cong ...
in retrospect, and that all it is ...
When I first heard that Trudeau had bought it I damned near cheered
With time - an improvement?


----------



## Kalatzi (1 Sep 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You want to try giving us that in English??


Another case of buying OBOLESCENT, hope I spelled that right, equipment. 
low price, high cost. say nothing more


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Sep 2006)

Move your discussion to the current era. What's done is done. What they did 75 years ago is immaterial. Let's talk today and the future. The Lieberals have no plan, no national strategy, and no idea how to react on the world stage or what to do with our countries military, how to fund, equip or deploy it. They are a rudderless ship, devoid of vision, moral fortitude or national will. The lying, cheating, self gratuitous thugs are now on the outside looking in. Hopefully, the public will finally see them for what they are, and next election, send them into the oblivion they deserve.


----------



## Loachman (1 Sep 2006)

Oblivion is too kind.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (1 Sep 2006)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Oblivion is too kind.



+1 I'd rather see the NDP as opposition......at least you know what they stand for.


----------



## Rifleman62 (1 Sep 2006)

To paraphrase an old expression - The only good Liberal, is a defeated Liberal. You could substitute another word that starts with "d."


----------



## 1feral1 (1 Sep 2006)

rz350 said:
			
		

> I don't know what the Lieberal party is.
> 
> When I voted, the Ballot had the Liberal party of Canada. The Conservative party, the New Democratic party and the Communist party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) at least in my riding, there was no Lieberal party.  ;D I dont see it on elections Canada website either.
> 
> ...



You're only 19 mate, wait til you really understand what has gone on after you get a few elections under your belt, then critique if you must, but the best thing Liberals have done recently is loose.

What about the BILLION dollar gun registration fiasco. Thats a BILLION $$, and could have better been spent elsewhere, like cancer research for example.

Wes


----------



## Kalatzi (1 Sep 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Move your discussion to the current era.


Hmmm, am I supposed to be a miracle worker? :
Oh Yeh, Tomb of the unknown soldier, Flags at hald mast, somewhat contraversial. 
Keeping us out of Iraq. 
With the Afghanistan mission enjoying the support that it does, that was a real good move
Yeah, their xtra-crispy now, but someone will have to form the next government
All parties go bad given time


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Sep 2006)

>Prior to the adoption of the maple leaf we flew what was known as the Red Ensign which had the Union Jack on it and was a derivative of the British Red Ensign

Many flags are derivatives of other flags and national symbols.  But if our Red Ensign as we had it wasn't flown first by another country, that made it "our flag" regardless from where the designers borrowed symbols.


----------



## Iron Oxide (1 Sep 2006)

"All parties go bad given time"

Very true. Give the conservatives long enough in power and they'll be as corrupt as the liberals.


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 Sep 2006)

If having the Union Flag appear on a national banner automatically disqualifies it, better get to work on most of the Commonwealth.  Most of the Provincial flags too, for that matter.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Sep 2006)

Why even the new Newfoundland Provincial Flag is only a faded Union Jack with the Newfie Bullet going through it.   ;D


----------



## Koenigsegg (1 Sep 2006)

<this does not directly relate to the current little topic being discussed in this thread, but as to the thread as a whole and maybe any other future Liberal based thread in the future, I do believe>

Is this thread about Liberal bashing, or liberal bashing?

My political beliefs are more liberal than anything else, with the exceptions of Military, and Law Enforcement.  The Liberal party has screwed up big time, and I think pretty much everyone will agree with that, but not all liberals are the long haired hippies that some people associate with the title.  The term liberal, when applied to people is not just one type of cookie cutter person, like all other types of people, the mentalities range dramatically.  Bashing ALL liberals is like saying that all Conservatives are war mongering sociopaths who care only about themselves.  It is BS.  Sure, some liberals are what you say they are, but on the same token, some conservatives match the BS example I just used.  Is there any chance that we could keep the liberal bashing to a minimum (as liberals' views are as wide ranging as anyones), and keep the bashing to the Liberal party?

</rant>


----------



## paracowboy (1 Sep 2006)

Koenigsegg said:
			
		

> Is there any chance that we could keep the liberal bashing to a minimum (as liberals' views are as wide ranging as anyones), and keep the bashing to the Liberal party?


no.

For some truly interesting thoughts on Liberalism vs liberalism vs libertarianism vs Classical Liberalism vs what-have-you, look into the many threads on the subject by seniore majoor.


----------



## cplcaldwell (1 Sep 2006)

Does Jack Layton qualify as a 'liberal'?


----------



## Loachman (1 Sep 2006)

Koenigsegg said:
			
		

> not all liberals are the long haired hippies that some people associate with the title.


I've never associated liberals - and I'm referring to the party member variety - with hippies. Hippies are generally honest and humble and don't interfere in others' lives and livelihoods.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Sep 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> For some truly interesting thoughts on Liberalism vs liberalism vs libertarianism vs Classical Liberalism vs what-have-you, look into the many threads on the subject by seniore majoor.



Para is too modest by half. But I'm not!  

Euston Manifesto  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42161.0.html
Conservatism needs work  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37454.0.html
Libertarians http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/45537.0.html
Why Socialism can never die  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42941.0.html
Left wing. http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/43222.0.html
Bill Cosby vs Jack Layton  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/44142.0.html
The right NOT to vote  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38841.0.html
This is how it happens  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/35595.0.html
Man and Liberalism  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33884.0.html
Getting Better Government requires better Voters!  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/32487.0.html
Politics with more dimensions  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23744.0.html

The problem with modern politics and much of today's society in my opinion is the quest to reduce everything to a sound bite or a magic pill (Paracowboy knows what this reference is about). I would defy most members of the Liberal Party of Canada to explain what their version of "liberalism" is about in any coherent way, particulary since in practice the Liberal Party of Canada and it's various provincial branches/offshoots simply act in an expediant manner to gain and weild political and economic power through the use and manipulation of laws, regulations and taxation, and through the funding and control of special interest groups to set the scope of public debate (which is the reason the membership is willing to pour scorn on the party and its representatives).

I invite you to go through these threads (and no, not all of them are mine) to get a grounding about other political philosophies. You may discover what Liberalism once was, and perhaps what the future may hold in Canadian politics.

My own prediction (FWIW) is the Liberal Party will rupture, with many elements going to the Greens and the NDP, since these parties actually have a coherent political philosophy. Depending on the mess, the core or rump of the Liberal Party will emerge as a new Centerist party, perhaps with a new name (look at the evolution of the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives to see what I mean).


----------



## The_Falcon (1 Sep 2006)

Kalatzi said:
			
		

> Hmmm, am I supposed to be a miracle worker? :
> Oh Yeh, Tomb of the unknown soldier, Flags at hald mast, somewhat contraversial.
> Keeping us out of Iraq.
> With the Afghanistan mission enjoying the support that it does, that was a real good move
> ...



Please, please, please, PROOFREAD (We actually care about proper sentence structure and grammar)!  There is a spellcheck button at the bottom, USE IT.  I am surprised none of the mods have given you "the list" yet.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Sep 2006)

I just thought he was mixing and matching English/German/Pig Latin.


----------



## paracowboy (1 Sep 2006)

I just had no idea what he said.


----------



## Koenigsegg (1 Sep 2006)

What I did was: pretend it was some foreign language, and try to piece it together in english.  Take the words you know, and try to put them in something close to the correct order.


----------



## Torlyn (2 Sep 2006)

I just read it slower.   

T


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (2 Sep 2006)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> Does Jack Layton qualify as a 'liberal'?



yes...a liberal socialist. It seems that they all like to tout themselves as "progressives" now...liberal perhaps having lost it's lustre a little after the Adscam debacle....and of course now that the Conservatives have changed their name the word can be used and not confused with the PCs.
It seems that anything that is controversial now they term themselves progressive and expect that that is the end of the debate because of course no one in their right mind wants to be thought of as "un-progressive."  :


----------



## rmacqueen (2 Sep 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> yes...a liberal socialist. It seems that they all like to tout themselves as "progressives" now...liberal perhaps having lost it's lustre a little after the Adscam debacle....and of course now that the Conservatives have changed their name the word can be used and not confused with the PCs.
> It seems that anything that is controversial now they term themselves progressive and expect that that is the end of the debate because of course no one in their right mind wants to be thought of as "un-progressive."  :



I would hope that the Canadian public would catch on to this sort of cheap political mumbo-jumbo.  Unfortunately, with so many forming opinions based on the latest sound bite I am doubtful.


----------



## HDE (2 Sep 2006)

Have we figured out yet what being "progressive" actually means; apparently Jack is seriously "progressive"  ???


----------



## TCBF (3 Sep 2006)

In it's strictly doctrinal sense, it means that which works towards the inevitable outcome of all class-based struggle: a true worker's paradise.  It is a term used to justfy the incremental nature of the revolution and pacify those who would immediately take to the barricades and hang the rich on lampposts.  

Think of that the next time some lettered pundit or TV bingo-caller (talking head journalista) calls a policy you and I like "regressive."


----------



## Dogboy (4 Sep 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Para is too modest by half. But I'm not!
> 
> Euston Manifesto  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42161.0.html
> Conservatism needs work  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37454.0.html
> ...



I think you need one more 
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html
for a view from outside the box entirely


----------



## paracowboy (4 Sep 2006)

yeah, 'cause Anarchy is a viable political system. :


----------



## warspite (4 Sep 2006)

The NDP may be idiots and the liberals may be corrupt but please... don't ever suggest the toppling of my wonderful countries gov't in favour of anarchy.*  It would be the end of Canada... end of discusion*.


----------



## paracowboy (4 Sep 2006)

warspite said:
			
		

> The NDP may be idiots and the liberals may be corrupt but please... don't ever suggest the toppling of my wonderful countries gov't in favour of anarchy.*  It would be the end of Canada... end of discusion*.


relax, it can't happen. Only adolescents (regardless of physical age) even dream of pretending that anarchy is a viable political system for anyone, anywhere.

Personally, I'd like to see anarchy instituted briefly. The numerous deaths would be almost entirely limited to the very types advocating anarchy in the first place. They're usually underfed, malnourished, fools who decry the presence of police officers and soldiers, along with any of the other trappings of authority that keep them safe and allow them to function safely, and their skulls would quickly be used for beer mugs by the nearest biker gang.


----------



## warspite (4 Sep 2006)

Thanks for the reality check...okay breathing deeply....blood pressure returning to normal.. ahhhh...

You are right about only fools dreaming of anarchy being a viable option. Governments may be corrupt by nature but they are a necessary part of life... for example building and maintaining the roads in the north or anywhere else for that matter. May not seem like a biggy but consider what would happen if all the roads in Canada were no longer maintained... after a while no more transportation via cars or trucks... meaning no more semies dropping of groceries and other goods to your now isolated (forestry, mining etc.) town. Now with everyone starving you think theirs going to be anyone at the hospital to help you?... well maybe some druggies raiding the place. So now what do you do.. people being shot down in the street and here you are...whose going to protect you now? Oh yeah here is your anarchy for you... now you see your mistake at what you've wrought and what you've done and then someone runs you over with a motorcycle from behind...

Sorry Para but I really had to get that off my chest...will drop the subject now...


----------



## Dogboy (4 Sep 2006)

obviously you all read the FAQs before jumping to the standard assumptions of what Anarchy is. before making your points.
just to let you know every state their was about to become a anarchy was brutally crushed by Fascists or Communist or capitalists, and that's where your views of total destruction come from.
 remember history is writing by the whiners


----------



## George Wallace (4 Sep 2006)

Dogboy said:
			
		

> obviously you all read the FAQs before jumping to the standard assumptions of what Anarchy is. before making your points.
> just to let you know every state their was about to become a anarchy was brutally crushed by Fascists or Communist or capitalists, and that's where your views of total destruction come from.
> remember history is writing by the whiners


 ???

Huh?


----------



## Kat Stevens (4 Sep 2006)

"remember history is writing by the whiners"
 :rofl:

Actually, it's written by those who can spell


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (4 Sep 2006)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> "remember history is writing by the whiners"
> :rofl:
> 
> Actually, it's written by those who can spell



Or they hired proofreaders and used a spellcheck! :


----------



## warspite (4 Sep 2006)

I've read the FAQ's now... and still don't believe this crap.  Anarchism- a society without hierarchies.  There have been hierarchies in civilization since the beginning. How would a government function without them? The book Guns Germs and Steel explains the rise of civilization and hierarchies quite well.  People are not equal and so therefore their will be hierarchies... in highschools everyone is theoretically equal so why do hierarchies exist in the student body? An economy without hierarchy ???
Utopia litterally translates into no place for a reason.
You also said that "every state their was that was about to become an anarchy was brutally crushed by Fascists or Communists or Capitalists" What states were these? Please enlighten me because I know of none.


----------



## Dogboy (4 Sep 2006)

OK first learning disability Iv got to deal with it 24 7 365 you can handle 2 sec. (and yes I always use spell check)

second.
Span during the civil war
Ukraine during the Bolshevik revolution. 
several Russian city's  during same revolution 


and Iv bin Reading G,G,@S its a good book Iv not come to the place where he mentions the need for a Hierarchies. can you point me to it thanks.

and 3 whats wrong with believing a better place is possible we don't have a true democracy so by that logic why bother voting?


----------



## warspite (4 Sep 2006)

Dogboy I respect the fact that you have a learning disability and that is why I never commented on your spelling.

Secondly I believe it comes up about three quarters of the way through GG@S, I found the whole book to be very well written especially the parts about the domestication of plant and animal species and the rise of agriculture.

Thirdly On the topic of anarchy perhaps it's best that we agree to disagree until there is a thread about it... then we can argue about it... until then lets get back to the liberals


----------



## paracowboy (4 Sep 2006)

warspite said:
			
		

> Thirdly On the topic of anarchy perhaps it's best that we agree to disagree until there is a thread about it... then we can argue about it...


dude, don't bother. When someone tries to argue the merits of Anarchism, Neo-Tech, Utopianism, Communism, et al, simply smile, pat their head, and look for the note pinned to their shirt so you can call their parents.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (4 Sep 2006)

warspite said:
			
		

> Dogboy I respect the fact that you have a learning disability and that is why I never commented on your spelling.
> 
> Secondly I believe it comes up about three quarters of the way through GG@S, I found the whole book to be very well written especially the parts about the domestication of plant and animal species and the rise of agriculture.
> 
> Thirdly On the topic of anarchy perhaps it's best that we agree to disagree until there is a thread about it... then we can argue about it... until then lets get back to the liberals



Of course as military members we are people who are supposed to be part of the means of ensuring that Anarchy does not rule. Members of the police force are also important in that mix.
I remember a few years ago in one of the towns in NB when the Police Force went on strike seeing a glaring example of how quickly Anarchy can take over and the destructiveness of the same. 
I don't think people who espouse Anarchy can be of any use as a member of this institution; the military. If you are interested in understanding it's tenets and philosophy so as to counteract it that's one thing. If you're interested in embracing it as a philosophy or way of life the CF is not a good place for such as that to be.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Sep 2006)

Actually, the best counter example is Afghanistan after the retreat of the Soviet Union. That country's infrastructure, social organizations and virtually everything that we associate with central government and authority had been destroyed, and the country was in anarchy by any practical definition of the term.

According to the "theory", everything should just settle down to Utopian splendor, yes? In actual fact, the Taliban flowed into the power vaccum. Second reality check is Iraq; the Ba'athists were removed and now the Iranians and Wahhabi's are attempting to create chaos and anarchy _in order_ to create the conditions that will allow them to supplant the legal authority of the Iraqi government. 

As for Spain, the Ukrainian "Green" movement and the fate of Russian cities under the local _Soviets_, one reason people finally accepted the imposition of Francoist or Bolshevik dictatorship was the sincere desire for some sort of order to come into their lives (France after the "Terror" was in much the same boat).

Even on a very small scale, most communes set up in the 1960's by the Diggers and Hippy movement attempted to start with some sort of "anarchistic" principles (heh) and where are they now?


----------



## onecat (4 Sep 2006)

"Now for that Arrow thing. Why does this still keep coming up? The thing was a long range interceptor, the Soviets had just invented their ICBM, Interceptors became obsolete. What we should have kept it? Kill it cut it up, it would have been useless and expensive by the time it was mass produced..."

not the right place for this, but your wrong in my opinion.  The Arrow was not obsolete, and would not of been waste of money had the govn't had the foresight to keep it and produce it.  Destroying was teh waste of money killed off the industry.  Again my opinion, but more correct one. ;D


----------



## onecat (4 Sep 2006)

Liberal bashing, it they get bashed because its well deserved.  Because they never have an actually policy they float with public opinion and so never get any done... they just let thing happen.

You listed gay marriage.  Until the court oevr turned their civil union law the Liberals were happy to keep a double standard,and both paul and jean and wer happy to keep that way.  So the liberal party didn't legelize it the court did.


I'll be the first agree that Liberals have done a few good things in their time in office, but they deserve to be bashed for even trying to make the pubic think their the natural ruling party of canada.  If anything they are natural party of stealing ideas and making the media present them as being their ideas.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Sep 2006)

It continues to blow my mind that people got so hung up about the Lieberal sponsorship scandal, that screwed Canadians out of millions of dollars, and everyone forgot about Jane Stewart and losing over two* billion * dollars of our cash.  
Two.  Billion.  Dollars.  
And what did we get by way of explanation or accountability?  "I guess we should look at how we track that money".  
Forget about all of the other jackass Lieberal ongoings, that one still rots my tail.  Read here if anyone needs a Wayback Machine refresher:
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012121

Lieberals are getting bashed, because they conducted themselves with such arrogance and discreditability for so many years.  They pretty much had a quarter century of modern rule, and what did they come up with?  
It comes back to one of my favorite sayings "If the truth hurts, it's because it's supposed to".


----------



## warspite (5 Sep 2006)

Chretien and his government were one of the worst things that ever happened to Canada.


----------

