Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Dave_ON

Members
  • Content Count

    880
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dave_ON

  1. no the scale is supposedly the REASON why we are forced to remember. It'd be kinda hard to get people to sob and mourn 100 dead Jews, in the midst of the tens of millions dead in the war...

    And of course, anyone acquainted with recent history, knows that the holocaust HAS BEEN repeated... In china, Russia, East Europe after the war, South East Asia, Rwanda etc... and it WILL happen again.

    so apparently the lesson did'nt work and the "let's remember so it never happens again" argument is moot.

    Again you're quite incorrect in your assumptions sir. Even you can concede that the number of dead far exceeded 100 and it was not only Jews that were taken. Anyone who is at all acquainted with the holocaust is fully aware that Gypsies, Gays and various other undesirables among society were also sent there. These people were not the casualties of war, these were state murders. War has its casualties absolutely, but that is to be expected, there will always be loss of combatants on either side. These were not soldiers, they were regular people like you and I that were rounded up and slaughtered because the powers that be didn't like who they were.

    The fact that it has happened again does not give us license to forget what happen, nor does it mean we should attempt to prevent it from happening again. If we don't learn from history then we will invariably repeat it. I would postulate that the argument that because it has and will happen again is immaterial. Remembering won't stop this from occurring all over the world that's true, but to forget and do nothing when history starts to repeat itself is little better than enabling those who would commit such crimes to do so. Apathy certainly isn't the answer. This is nothing more than a revisionist excuse to try and sweep a human tragedy under the rug or at the very least try and reduce its significance and impact to obscurity.

  2. Sorry Dave! To me and I suspect many others it's becoming just too high a price to pay. While it likely would mean another few decades of "Liberals forever" what would be the difference to those of us who see little or no difference between the Liberal style and that of Mulroney 'conservatism'? Either fate is the same to us. Effectively, we have been disenfranchised. We have no party for which to vote that identifies with our values. We can either try to change the CPC, which is all but impossible under its new structure, start a new party or just STAY HOME!

    If the CPC wants our support couldn't they at least throw us a SMALL bone or two?

    W. Bill you make an excellent point and it is indeed a difficult spot to be in. I'm certainly far from a CPC insider but it seems to me that a new leader would make all the difference. At least it would in terms of PR for the party. The problem with Mr. Harper is he can't help himself. He's a politician but he's not a pragmatist. He's a highly partisan and polarizing figure and by far and in large that doesn't resonate with most Canadians. He's very much a “my way or the hi-way” type person and, by all appearances, he runs the CPC the same way he attempted to run the country. This of course results in the top down problems you referred to in your post.

    Like I mentioned I'm not in the CPC inner or even the outer circle. Clearly there are larger issues at play. I suppose my question to you is what do you see as the problems with the current incarnation of "conservatism" in Canadian politics? I'm a firm believer in the delicate political balance in Canada, and while I don't share the values of many conservatives, I can see the merit in them and recognize it as part of the fabric of our society.

    Having two strong federal parties keeps the other in check. If we don't have a strong opposition then corruption, affluence and apathy sets in which of course no one, save those at the top, benefits from.

  3. I have no problem with them protesting. Keep at 'er as long as you want. We have LOTS of welfare money in this "country".

    I have a problem with anyone interfering with an official ceremony of this type. It wouldn't matter to me if it was 10,000 Albertans protesting for separation...I'd want them to get the hell off the hill and let the ceremony take place. If not, have the cops or military get in there and move them forcibly. This is not about civil rights; it's about respect for people who died in a horrific war.

    And the number of Jews killed makes absolutely no difference. 5 million. 7 million. 40 million. The point is men, women and even children were murdered in the most horrendous ways imaginable (and some unimaginable) and they should be remembered.

    I agree with Hydraboss. Of course these folks have every right to peaceful protest but this does not supersede the rights of others to congregate peacefully on the Hill as well for a memorial gathering or a counter protest if they so choose. Part of exercising your right to peaceful protest and freedom of speech is accepting that others can and will disagree with you.

    As for the holocaust debate that is ongoing I think the folks that are debating the numbers are missing the point. The numbers do not matter and the scale doesn't make it any more or less deplorable. The point is people were murdered because of their race, religion and sexual preference during the holocaust. The point of remembering it this many years hence is to remain vigilant so that we do not fall victim to the same lies. Germany in the 30's was not all that different from us, and it would be arrogant to think that we could not fall into the same trap if we are not mindful of this.

    In answer to Lictor616's earlier post I don't think we should every stop remembering what happened; if we distance ourselves from it, if we attempt to diminish its impact and the implications therein either by scale or by obfuscation we run the risk repeating those same mistakes. The numbers are certainly debatable the atrocities however are not.

  4. I think the issue is not as settled as LeBreton and Segal would like to think. This whole affair has done far more internal damage to the CPC than they care to admit and the amount of public impact will be relatively minimal in comparison. The nigh on 25 year old misdeeds of a former PM are not at the forefront of the Canadian electorates psyche especially considering present economic conditions. But the devastating impact this has had on those old PC CPC members who have widely regarded Mulroney a hero of modern day conservatism is irreparable. Even those from the old Reform camp acknowledge Mr. Mulroney was a key player in the inroads they made in Quebec, which Mr. Harper single handedly manage to destroy.

    It's unfortunate, and I find it fascinating how quickly political fortunes can change. My hope is that the CPC will learn from this, make the right call and elect a more moderate, less partisan and polarizing party leader and restore the true conservative/liberal balance that in integral part of Canadian politics. Our system is dependent on a strong government, tempered by a strong opposition. This is something that we have been lacking since the annihilation of the PC party in 1993.

  5. I know....he still won.

    I suppose from a purely technical sense you are quite correct. Parliamentary politics are certainly not as cut and dry as a simple win/lose scenario. I'd hardly call a minority government, even as Mr. Harper is so fond of phrasing it, a "strengthened minority" a sweeping victory. There were a number of complex factors that led to a second CPC minority in the last election, most of which have changed and come next election parliament will look quite different, or so all current circumstances would seem to indicate. Either way I fail to see what you have added to this discussion, you haven't demonstrated any knowledge of who Mulroney is or was to Canada and you seem to lack a fundamental understanding of Canadian Politics in general. In fact the only posts I have seen from you are disparaging remarks about Canada. This is indeed a contradiction as, if you care so little for our Country and its people why do you waste your time on a forum that is clearly Canadian?

    Let’s get back on topic. This leaves Harper in a rather difficult position. How is he to handle this whole affair? Mr. Harper has never been much a pragmatist. But he has one of two choices, he can throw Mulroney under the bus and risk alienating the old school Progressive Conservatives thereby eroding his base support and risk dividing the right again. Or he can defend Mulroney which will make him a hypocrite for railing on the Liberals so hard about the Ad Scam. Either way it is a difficult decision and I'll be interested to see how it all plays out.

×
×
  • Create New...