- Chrétien, and all Liberals, have always stood tall, held their head up with pride for what they believe in
excerpt submitted to: Best answer to the Quebec question? A majority
Sep 13, 2009 04:30 AM, Angelo Persichilli
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/694585
in reply to: Another Voice Of Reason
Everyone knows that he and the Liberals represented the middle of the road. However, I can see how someone who is viewing matters from the extremely far right might feel the need to so present.
In fact, Chrétien was always very clear as to where he stood and what he stood for. He, and all Liberals, stood tall, held their head up with pride for what they believe in.
Harper on the other hand hides from Canadian what he truly represents, as was clearly demonstrated by the closed door Sault Ste Marie meeting, . In fact, as I am sure you are aware, there is a grass roots movement amongst Conservatives to demand that Harper stand up, with his head held high, no longer hiding like it is some kind of sin, and proclaim, openly to all Canadians, his right wing ideological roots and intentions. For example, Gerry Nicholls, formerly vice president of the National Citizens Coaliton, "The next time the Tories send you a fundraising letter, write them back a polite note indicating you no longer wish to financially support a political party which acts more Liberal than Conservative" (see, "Gerry Nicholls: Canada needs conservatives, not Conservatives, National Post, September 11, 2009"); as well as, a recent interview with Tom Flanagan).
I can respect Gerry Nicholls for standing up for what he believes. And, I can respect Tom Flanagan for doing the same. However, I do not subscribe to their ideology and I do not agree with their political objectives.
However, I can not see how anyone can honestly have respect for Stephan Harper both for not having the courage of his convictions and for the way he has treated our parliamentary institutions, his political opponents and, when it gets right down to it, the good people of Canada.
You suggest that the problem is that Toronto has too much representation because it is based on population and so it should be changed to square milage.
I am surprised that Harper has not announced such a suggestion about disenfranchising Toronto, a large anti-Harper bastion. After all he did introduce a Bill C-56 a while back to expend the number of riding in a fashion that seriously under represented Ontario and Toronto. (see for example, "Premier Mcguinty Asks For Amendment To Bill C-56 - September 16, 2007", http://www.premier.gov.on.ca/news/event.php?ItemID=3742&Lang=en). One need not think too hard to come up with a 'plausible' explanation as to why Harper would want to dis-enfranchise Toronto.
Ontarians obviously have something to look forward to if Harper and the Con's were to get a majority. Better we simply give him the boot.
Sep 13, 2009 04:30 AM, Angelo Persichilli
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/694585
in reply to: Another Voice Of Reason
Everyone knows that he and the Liberals represented the middle of the road. However, I can see how someone who is viewing matters from the extremely far right might feel the need to so present.
In fact, Chrétien was always very clear as to where he stood and what he stood for. He, and all Liberals, stood tall, held their head up with pride for what they believe in.
Harper on the other hand hides from Canadian what he truly represents, as was clearly demonstrated by the closed door Sault Ste Marie meeting, . In fact, as I am sure you are aware, there is a grass roots movement amongst Conservatives to demand that Harper stand up, with his head held high, no longer hiding like it is some kind of sin, and proclaim, openly to all Canadians, his right wing ideological roots and intentions. For example, Gerry Nicholls, formerly vice president of the National Citizens Coaliton, "The next time the Tories send you a fundraising letter, write them back a polite note indicating you no longer wish to financially support a political party which acts more Liberal than Conservative" (see, "Gerry Nicholls: Canada needs conservatives, not Conservatives, National Post, September 11, 2009"); as well as, a recent interview with Tom Flanagan).
I can respect Gerry Nicholls for standing up for what he believes. And, I can respect Tom Flanagan for doing the same. However, I do not subscribe to their ideology and I do not agree with their political objectives.
However, I can not see how anyone can honestly have respect for Stephan Harper both for not having the courage of his convictions and for the way he has treated our parliamentary institutions, his political opponents and, when it gets right down to it, the good people of Canada.
You suggest that the problem is that Toronto has too much representation because it is based on population and so it should be changed to square milage.
I am surprised that Harper has not announced such a suggestion about disenfranchising Toronto, a large anti-Harper bastion. After all he did introduce a Bill C-56 a while back to expend the number of riding in a fashion that seriously under represented Ontario and Toronto. (see for example, "Premier Mcguinty Asks For Amendment To Bill C-56 - September 16, 2007", http://www.premier.gov.on.ca/news/event.php?ItemID=3742&Lang=en). One need not think too hard to come up with a 'plausible' explanation as to why Harper would want to dis-enfranchise Toronto.
Ontarians obviously have something to look forward to if Harper and the Con's were to get a majority. Better we simply give him the boot.
posted by wlloydm at
2:09 PM
<< Home