The Bloc Quebecois is Federal, Parti Quebecois (PQ) is provincial in Quebec only. It is the PQ who twice since 1980 have had a provincial referendum for the right to Cecede from Canada. Each time they have narrowly lost the vote, last time I think it was 49% in favour, 51% not in favour. Each time we have to throw Quebec tidbits of favours and beg them to stay in. They have never had a serious discussion as to what would happen of they did vote to separate. For instance, as Quebec has about 1/4 of the national population, does that mean that they get 1/4 of the national debt (if that were the case then I say, please go...). In Quebec they have the french language police. If you are say a business in Montreal you have to have prominent french language signs. If English language signs approach the predominance of French language and there is a complaint, then the language police show up. Again, back when Mike Harris was in power, if you lived in Ontario and worked in Quebec or were an Ontario business, French business's recieved preferential treatments, tenders etc., Mike Harris finally reciprocated that Ontarion would do the same. Around 2000, an Ontario based cable company (Roger's Cable, the largest MSO in Canada) purchased Videotron, the 2nd largest cable company in Canada and one that held mainly French assets. There was such an uproar it was unbelievable, how can we allow an Ontario company to own a Quebec company. Finally Quebecor moved in and purchased Videotron, everyone was happy, Quebecor had to pay a penalty to Roger's in the order of 50 million dollars, Roger's used that money and went out and purchased the Toronto Blue Jays and the Toronto Skydome. You are correct, politics now are run by special interest groups (Quebec is one big special interest group) who use fear mongering to get their own way. Your reference to the childness bickering of Canadian Politicians is spot on. You'll see that my location says "near Hamilton", well one of the worst politicians was Sheila Copps from Hamilton, they used to call this select group of opposition MP's the "Ratpack" and they would scream and interupt parliament all the time, I even recall a picture of her leaping up on a desk to scream her outrage at something. A total embarassment. One politician, I think he was from Newfoundland, almost put her in her place. She went into one of them tirades and he said something to the effect "Ok, Ok, pass the tequila Sheila", it brought everyone down to tears and laughter except her. After another outrage and talking to the media this guy had to give her a public apology. I get sick of the whole thing. It's probably similar to me as it is to you. I get to sit back and watch select shows and news highlights and filter what I want to read when it comes to foreign (American) politics. I can form my own opinions based on how I percieve what is going on in your country. The I can stand on my soapbox and be all condescending to you and tell you how you guys should operate... The same thing in reverse is probably true, you see some news highlights and stuff and form your opinions based on 30 second news highlights or a small story buried in the back of the local newspaper.
I never did understand how in Quebec English is treated as some sort of plague, yet the rest of the country has to have all their signs in French. I'm sure the number of French speaking Canadians who pass through some isolated town in Manitoba must be thrilled to see signs in French so they don't have to learn English. Seems to me like there is some major forms of discrimination going on.
Brewster, it looks like you found the same thing I did when you examined the Tea Party's website. They make no concrete proposals for any reductions in expenditures in the programs that are the most costly. Instead, they make broad statements anyone could support, and thus engage no one in any serious discussion about where to start. This is enough to distinguish them from anything more serious than obtaining or maintaining political office of those who are able to harness the energy of the "movement". twini, I thought your post a few back was a very sober assessment of the Tea Party, and what it represents, at the moment. Whether it can become more, remains to be seen. My feeling is that the citizens have to come to terms with what they are willing to see cut, then the politicians can move on it, not before. One of the things that flows from this line of thinking is that the personalities who hold office are of less importance than educating the American people to the problems the country is facing, getting them to move beyond denial, and motivating them to solve the nation's problems.
I'm not an active Tea Party Participant, but I do believe you've gotten it correct on the Tea Party Mission Statement and Platform. The exact origin of the Tea Party movement is unclear. There are several different groups which call themselves a Tea Party movement. However, a strong catalyst in 2009 was CNBC analyst Rick Santelli. "Reporting from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade, went on an epic rant regarding Obama's stimulus package saying, "The government is promoting bad behavior," before turning to the traders on the floor and whipping them up into a frenzy. He also calls for a Chicago Tea Party in July 2009, saying - "All you capitalists that wanna show up to Lake Michigan, I'm gonna start organizing it...I'll be dumping in some derivative securities..." [ame="&feature=player_embedded"]&feature=player_embedded#! From what I've read and understand, there are no well known, central Political Party leaders of the many Tea Parties – and that's the idea. It is a grassroots movement led by fed-up independent citizens, tried of fiscal irresponsibility and uncontrolled Government waste fueled by the 700 BILLION in bank bailouts (i.e, Rick Santelli's broadcast rant). The anger is directed at both Democrats and Republicans. Both have been fiscally irresponsible, increased the size of Gov't, and have allowed the National Debt to balloon past $14 Trillion. The Tea Parties have been self organizing via emails and the internet and not an official Political Party network. I don't understand why you say the Tea Party movement is aligned with the Republicans. The Republican Party has its own leaders and fund raising networks. You can be sure Republican money does NOT go to fund the Tea Parties. I will say that The Tea Parties DO align themselves with Conservative principles. Sarah Palin gets paid to speak and appear at Tea Party Rallies. She does not speak at these events for free and of course she is a Conservative. Fox News gives the Tea Party movement media coverage because NBC, CBS, CBC, ABC, BBC, MSNBC, and CNN - don't. Additionally, the other networks have shown bias against Conservatives. The common denominator between Tea Parties and Republicans are Conservative ideals and principles. Like me, a Conservative is not automatically a Republican. I might vote for a serious fiscally responsible Democrat or Independent candidate - If I could find one... So I don't understand how you define Fox News giving them "so much support". Support How? Media reporting on the Tea Party without a liberal bias? Where is your evidence that the many different Tea Parties had an existing political arrangement from the start? I see just the opposite; the Republicans are scared that the Tea Parties will become an official Third Political Party. There's no question, Republicans want the Tea Party movement to vote for Republican candidates and actively promote a political alliance with independent voters. I think your conspiracy theory of a hidden agenda has been promoted by Democrats that see the Tea Parties as a threat to their liberal agenda of Big Government, Tax & spend. I recommend you see the following CNN story & video: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/18/tea-party-organizer-not-for-a-third-party/?fbid=nwjGJjqNB51 Hoffman's comments come two days after former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin - the keynote speaker at the recent Tea Party Convention in Nashville - said it's time for members of the group to get behind either the Democrat or Republican Party. "Because the Tea Party movement is not a party, and we have a two-party system, they're going to have to pick a party and run one or the other: 'R' or 'D'," Palin said during a Republican Party fundraiser in Arkansas, according to CBS News. Hoffman's comments also come two days after members of the Tea Party movement met with Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. Hoffman, who initiated the event with Steele, said the meeting was an opportunity to be "able to have the patriots and citizens throughout the country come out and response to legislation…to be heard by the political establishment."
Quebec I have traveled extensively, on business, across Canada. I have spent a lot of time in Quebec. And I have an interest in history. Here is my take on things: The French were far more active than the British in the initial exploration and colonization of what is today, Canada. They had strong alliances with many native bands, such as the Mohawks and Cree, who assisted them in finding waters routes west. The primary motivation was beaver pelts. The British increased their presence over time, also in search of beaver pelts. For a number of complicated reasons the King of France abandoned the colonies and left them to form an uneasy alliance with the British, during the War of 1812. Eventually this alliance was formalized, in 1867, with the Confederation of Canada. This, today, still leaves a people (23% of the Canadian population at last count) with very different cultural roots than the rest of Canada. They speak a different language, though many in urban centers speak English as well. They have their own arts communities, styles of dress, cuisine and architecture. They have a different history made up of the struggles of their predecessors in this land. They have a strong Desire to hold onto their culture and heritage. They are a proud people. For many years they suffered a prejudice under English Canada. "English" Canadians got the best jobs in Quebec companies, etc.. Watch the movie about the hockey great "Maurice Richard (The Rocket)" to get a feel for this. All of this is used by their political leaders, to gain power, sometimes for "just reasons" in the preservation of their culture and sometimes simply for power. "Bill 101", the Quebec language bill that deals with signage in Quebec among other things, is probably unconstitutional but ignored by Federal leaders as too hot to handle. National political figures are quick to pander to Quebec's demands, seeing 23% of the voting population as a number to great to alienate. The rest of Canada, for the most part, is highly resentful of this. Personally, I would like to see Quebec's culture maintained. Visiting Quebec City is like going to Europe, in many ways. French Canadian culture is very much interwoven on the fabric of this nation. Realistically, though, they are an island in an English sea, surrounded by English Canada and America. Their commercial survival is dependent on their being able to conduct business in English, outside of Quebec and to some extent even within their own borders (they have a large population of non-French speaking people particularly in the Montreal area). It's a lot like most parts of the world these days, with globalization. Go to Thailand and you find a McDonald's. How "Mexican" is Cancun, for that matter? Culture is a hard thing to hold onto in the face of economic prosperity.
Wait a minute! That makes no sense. Whose responsibility is it to come up with solutions to Public Policy issues and Government fiscal problems? Are the Tea Party members elected officials? Should common citizens have the direct responsibility to sponsor Bills and create policy procedures in leu of the elected paid politicians? Or should common citizens simply be voicing anger at officials elected to work and represent them as well as be accountable.... BUT instead ignore the will of those that put them in office? Isn't that why we have candidates promising us that THEY have the answers? That they the candidates - have specific plans, and will serve their constituents loyally and with integrity? V. let me ask you – since when is it that Government functions by the common man making detailed policy instead of the politicians working on behalf of the people?
Thanks for that. The clips were really interesting! I'm surprised that I haven't seen Ron Paul speaking at Tea Party functions. His views are probably much more in keeping with the Tea Party platform than Palin's or Steeles. Fox regularly reports on Tea Party functions but in a manner that supports their dissatisfaction with the current administration.. the Democrats. They also report on functions with Republican keynote speakers, such as Sarah Palin, but little coverage of events with the movements own, politically unaffiliated, speakers. I think, were I a Republican organizer, I would be concerned about the Tea Party becoming a registered third party and splitting the conservative vote. As a Democrat organizer, I would view that as a good thing and try to emulate as much of the Tea Party platform as I could within our own party platform. There are two facts that really bother me. One) Historically, the media in print and early television at least attempted to separate reporting the news in an objective manner and then include editorials that expressed the views of the publication or news organization. Today, there is no such separation and everything you hear and read is biased. Two) All political parties lie. They say what they think we want to hear, appealing to the majority of voters. They withhold the painful truth of what really needs to be done to get thing back on track. They make promises they can't possibly keep and have no true intention of keeping. They throw mud at their opponents, often with no basis in fact, to gain advantage. Voters are swayed by sound bites and they know it.
Zackman asked: Since the politicians stopped working on behalf of the people.... The needed changes are not going to come from the politicians. The long standing processes of cutting taxes, while increasing benefits, has been handed us by the politicians because it was popular. Cutting government expenditures for the biggest of the federal programs will not be. Until the people are willing to engage in a serious discussion of actual cuts to big programs, there can be no progress, and it's going to hurt. Zackman, do you think you could endorse either, 1) the reduction to medicare coverage that I proposed; or, 2) the limitations to social security retirement benefits I proposed? Those are examples of what I mean by actual cuts to big programs. _______________________ I made my most serious attempt to concisely summarize where I see America, at this point in its history, in my post of May 5, 2010, on this thread- http://www.cancuncare.com/forum/liv...04-nervously-eyeing-markets-2.html#post320381 Political "wind" hasn't solved these problems in the past, and won't in the future: these are adult problems that will require adults to solve them. In a society where instant gratification has become the norm- and buy now pay later, the watchword- it won't be that easy to find any. _______________________
V: #1) Yes as a fiscal conservative, and as I've stated before I do support prudent - deep cuts to all Gov't social entitlements including: reductions in Medicare / Medicaid, Social Security Retirement Benefits, Welfare payments & eligibility, stopping the perpetual lengthening & continuous renewal of unemployment benefits, and repeal of Obamacare, etc. Personally, I do not count on Social Security Retirement Benefits in the future because the system will be bankrupt by the time I reach retirement age. I in-fact, have my own retirement savings and 401K retirement plans that I regularly contribute to now - so that I will not have to depend on a Gov't entitlement. That's also what I consider MY personal resposibility to provide for my own future (what a concept-aye?) #2) I agree with you - politicians have stopped working on behalf of the people and "until the people are willing to engage in a serious discussion of actual cuts to big programs, there can be no progress, and it's going to hurt" – no doubt! Now the way I see people engaging in a serious discussion (protest) of actual cuts to big programs IS A GRASSROOTS MOVEMENT like the Tea (Taxed Enough Already) Parties where common people gather to protest unresponsive politicians and run away – uncontrolled Gov't spending. There must be counter pressure groups like the Tea Parties to offset the Big Unions (Gov't workers, Teachers, UAW, Teamsters, etc) and special interest groups which constantly make demands for more Gov't entitlements!!!
