eFilmCritic Forum Index eFilmCritic
Community Forum
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Canada and the Bush re-election

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    eFilmCritic Forum Index -> Off-Topic Chat
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Alex Paquin
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 16 Jul 2002
Posts: 1719
Location: Quebecland

PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:10 pm    Post subject: Canada and the Bush re-election Reply with quote

As all of you Canadians (and, I suspect, some Americans) already know, Canada has been massively pro-Kerry during the last US campaign.

I just came across a piece in the arch-conservative "National Post" so dogmatic in its support for Bush that I cannot avoid commenting on it.

It is written by Terence Corcoran, who has a certain notoriety as a right-wing lunatic around here. You can read it at:

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=419b1960-f92c-41ae-9620-a403b6bbf4a4

I'll just cover a few excerpts for your edification.

Quote:
Against unprecedented media bias, including truckloads of anti-Bush books and reams of magazine invective, Americans turned out to vote for a second Bush term. In defiance of the U.S. union movement and leftist activists from Michael Moore to Al Franken, Americans chose Bush. In voting booths, they defied the wishes of the people of France, Spain and Germany, ignored the haughty admonitions of The Economist and the Financial Times of London, thumbed their noses at the U.S. liberal intelligentsia, told the editor of Vanity Fair to get lost and turned squishy Comedy Network kingpin Jon Stewart into a (temporarily, one assumes) unfunny election-night loser.


Media bias from the left: Bad.
Media bias from the right, of which there is a lot more: It's not a bias, it's the truth.

By the way, who'd have thought unions still had any weight in America? And by all means, let's show the middle finger at the rest of the world.


Quote:
On tax policy, Bush will continue his tax-cut mission, aiming for tax reform and reductions that can only stimulate similar initiatives in Canada. Whatever the polls may show, tax cuts serve to reduce the size of government and promote productive private investment that increases productivity and growth. In Ottawa today, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives launches a new initiative aimed at reducing personal and corporate taxes in Canada. Bush's policies can only reinforce the council's case.


The first two sentences are your usual spiel that almost argues tax cuts can cure rheumatism. Note the buzz words: "stimulate initiatives", "productivity and growth".

The third sentence is even more telling: Let's please the Canadian Council of Chief Executives at all costs. During the last Canadian election they were worried about the "political uncertainty" of a minority government. Gee, democracy is so unpredictable, isn't it? I am told that dictatorships at their zenith are the most stable regimes in the world. Besides, showing up on TV in that expensive 3-piece suit advocating a tax cut for yourself does absolutely nothing for the average person.

Quote:
The global warming scare, a hopeless burden for Canada under the Kyoto Protocol, is now even less likely to become entrenched in actual policy. The new mix of senators and representatives ends any possibility that the U.S. government will soon adopt major economy-wide programs to impose draconian carbon emissions control schemes. While Canada officially backs Kyoto, implementing it is known to be hopeless and any development that puts the prospect off is good news for the country and the economy.


Environmental protection, even in the age of increasing oil prices, is SOOOOO bad. Business suffers, and thus the environment is bad.

Quote:
Bush also didn't engage in Kerry's demagogic attacks on the pharmaceutical industry.


Soaring U.S. medication prices, anyone? Vioxx recalls and possible side-effects cover-up, anyone? Flu vaccine shortages, anyone?

Quote:
More radically, Bush backed health savings accounts, a major innovation that could shake up health policy on both sides of the border if he pursues it with any vigour.


By all means, Canada, let's follow the United States' enlightened lead. No more socialized health care, but hey, savings accounts are great!

Quote:
Canadians might have liked Kerry's style and fuzzy liberalish policy agenda. But in reality he promised little that would have benefited Canadians and the Canadian economy. Bush's policy agenda will do more good for Canada.


Those damn liberals.

So Bush's election benefits the Canadian economy? Maybe the business execs running it.
Benefits Canadians? Who cares, really, about ordinary Canadians?

Quote:
Thanks to American voters who defied massive and unprecedented opposition, Canadians will get what's best for them.


What, more bullying?

Nothing worse than a right-winger with a smug attitude.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
lindy03



Joined: 09 Nov 2003
Posts: 1723
Location: usa

PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:48 pm    Post subject: Re: Canada and the Bush re-election Reply with quote

Alex Paquin wrote:
right-wing lunatic
They're everywhere! And they're so damn scary!
Terence Corcoran wrote:
Against unprecedented media bias, including truckloads of anti-Bush books and reams of magazine invective
I think this is my favorite part Rolling Eyes
Terence Corcoran wrote:
In voting booths, they defied the wishes of the people of France, Spain and Germany, ignored the haughty admonitions of The Economist and the Financial Times of London, thumbed their noses at the U.S. liberal intelligentsia, told the editor of Vanity Fair to get lost and turned squishy Comedy Network kingpin Jon Stewart into a (temporarily, one assumes) unfunny election-night loser.
Why? Cause they're stupid!

Alex Paquin wrote:
By the way, who'd have thought unions still had any weight in America? And by all means, let's show the middle finger at the rest of the world.
That's what I was thinking

Alex Paquin wrote:
The first two sentences are your usual spiel that almost argues tax cuts can cure rheumatism. Note the buzz words: "stimulate initiatives", "productivity and growth".
Who else uses those buzz words?? Hmmm...I'm thinking...hmmm...is it...Shrub?!

Terence Corcoran wrote:
The global warming scare, a hopeless burden for Canada under the Kyoto Protocol, is now even less likely to become entrenched in actual policy. The new mix of senators and representatives ends any possibility that the U.S. government will soon adopt major economy-wide programs to impose draconian carbon emissions control schemes. While Canada officially backs Kyoto, implementing it is known to be hopeless and any development that puts the prospect off is good news for the country and the economy.
Geez! Volcanos erupting in Iceland are so dreary. So long as no one is evacuated. Gosh, I'm surprised it got any coverage at all. But, I'm sure that ice destabilizing under a glacier & lava flowing in Iceland Shocked isn't a problem at all. Nope...life goes on. Oh those pesky environmental laws, damn it! Sheesh! Now even the Queen wants to comment on the environment. What does she know, anyway?!?!

Terence Corcoran wrote:
Bush also didn't engage in Kerry's demagogic attacks on the pharmaceutical industry.

Alex Paquin wrote:
Soaring U.S. medication prices, anyone? Vioxx recalls and possible side-effects cover-up, anyone? Flu vaccine shortages, anyone?
Bush knew better than to try & counter much of that. Yet, the sheep are easily led, aren't they?

Terence Corcoran wrote:
More radically, Bush backed health savings accounts, a major innovation that could shake up health policy on both sides of the border if he pursues it with any vigour.

Alex Paquin wrote:
By all means, Canada, let's follow the United States' enlightened lead. No more socialized health care, but hey, savings accounts are great!
Until someone spends all of theirs on a Harley(no offense to you bike enthusiasts). Then there'll be lawsuits against the government for not stopping those people from their own stupidity. And they'll be filed by those evil lawyers. Yeah! That'll be awesome!!

Alex Paquin wrote:
Those damn liberals. So Bush's election benefits the Canadian economy? Maybe the business execs running it.
Benefits Canadians? Who cares, really, about ordinary Canadians?
No one...didn't you know that? Bush has never set foot in Canada. Of course it's not a priority.

Terence Corcoran wrote:
Thanks to American voters who defied massive and unprecedented opposition, Canadians will get what's best for them.
Who swallows this dribble?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lurk



Joined: 03 Mar 2004
Posts: 1432
Location: Vancouver, BC Canada

PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just got stopped on my lunch break by CBC and asked what I thought the re-election of George Bush means for Canada.

I said that I know some people are happy such as those in the software lumber trade, but now we are going to have big concerns over privacy and terrorism. I'm not happy Bush won.

Anyhoot, the ironic thing is unfortunately because I am in a biometrics firm, Bush getting elected means more global chaos which means more security concerns which is good for business. And the U.S. dollar is slipping which makes Canadian investment a more lucrative proposition.

It's not a silver lining I wanted to own that's for sure. Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
the Grinch
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 669
Location: FL, USA

PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, nobody reads the National Post though. Media bias in general comes down to the biases of the billionaires that own those networks, the Rupert Murdochs, George Soros's, and Jack Welchs of the world. The unfortunate thing is the writer has a point, wasn't Canada's legalization campaign effectively derailed by pressure from the US?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Lurk



Joined: 03 Mar 2004
Posts: 1432
Location: Vancouver, BC Canada

PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
wasn't Canada's legalization campaign effectively derailed by pressure from the US?


Are you talking about legalizing pot? If so, the answer is no, it was not US pressure that derailed the issue, it was because we had an election. However, Martin said if he did get elected it would definitely be back on the agenda. I think I read yesterday that the bill was re-introduced in the House, but I can't find any verification so don't quote me.

Also a point to note, that one of the reasons that Paul Martin won the election was because the Liberals had taken such a strong stance against Bush and the war in Iraq. Steven Harper supported the war and shared many of Bush's conservative values on abortion, gay rights. I shudder to think what would have happened to us if we had Harper and Bush together.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oz
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 5895
Location: Vancouver, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The pot decriminalization thing is very much back on the agenda (as opposed to legalization - there's a big difference), and the trade off for the conservatives is that there will be a law against driving stoned.

Which is kind of a 'duh', if you ask me, but okay.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lurk



Joined: 03 Mar 2004
Posts: 1432
Location: Vancouver, BC Canada

PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, yeah, I know, decriminalization vs. legalization. I was running out the door from work and typing fast. Razz

I was reading in The Province today some of the editorials over Marc Emery's interview (FYI for those who don't know he is the leader of the BC Marijuana Party). In the interview he said he has driven his vehicle countless times under the influenece of pot and that pot smokers are more careful drivers since they go slower.

Somehow that didn't make me feel beeter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oz
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 5895
Location: Vancouver, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, he said that they're in less of a rush, which is true unless they're headed out for a bag of Dorito's.

But I'd hate to be a passenger next to a driver who is stoned when a situation arises that requires fast reaction time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Post new topic   Reply to topic    eFilmCritic Forum Index -> Off-Topic Chat All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group