Aha! Canadians!

by **Colonel Ingus** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 2:43 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108237,00.html

Bush to let Canadian firms to bid on reconstruction contracts in Iraq.

Haha! Take that you silly Canucks!

by **Chacal** » Wed Jan 14, 2004 12:14 am

Frankly I liked the old prime minister better. Bending over before Bush in order to get contracts we're not entitled to is not a manly thing to do. We chose to not help with the invasion of Iraq, we should not profit from it. Same applies to France, Germany and Russia.

As Bush doesn't speak for all americans, that Paul Martin guy does not speak for all canadians. And he wasn't elected either.

by **Rand0m** » Wed Jan 14, 2004 12:17 am

Well we all know Al Gore was suppossed to be President but all the old geezers down in Florida can't handle new technology lol!

by **=V!per=** » Wed Jan 14, 2004 1:45 am

Originally posted by Nazi_Killer
Well we all know Al Gore was suppossed to be President

Excuse Me????????:freak: :freak:

Old news bud let it go

I'm kinda bias of course.

by **shockwave203** » Wed Jan 14, 2004 2:29 am

Originally posted by Chacal
:( Frankly I liked the old prime minister better. Bending over before Bush in order to get contracts we're not entitled to is not a manly thing to do. We chose to not help with the invasion of Iraq, we should not profit from it. Same applies to France, Germany and Russia.

As Bush doesn't speak for all americans, that Paul Martin guy does not speak for all canadians. And he wasn't elected either.

He didn't bend over backwards to get contracts. How did you come up with that?

Canada, unlike France, Germany and Russia, pledged money for reconstruction in Iraq. although it was only $225 million, that fox link said it was one of the largest donations, which is why Canada is included on the bidding.

I agree with you though, I don't believe Canada should be allowed to bid on any contracts. It was the US who invaded, they take on the responsibility to rebuild the country, so the American government should pay american companies to do it.

hopefully the releations between our two countries under Martin doesn't go down the pooper. But like you, i also really liked Chretien. he wasn't anyones pet poodle, which was one of his really good qualities.

by **Agent-Commando** » Wed Jan 14, 2004 3:11 am

I too liked Chretien, I just hope the Liberals keep their promises (yeh right) in the years to come. It's clear that the Liberals are here to stay for awhile as the dominant party in our country's future.

by **Rule of Wrist** » Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:44 am

Originally posted by Chacal
:( Frankly I liked the old prime minister better. Bending over before Bush in order to get contracts we're not entitled to is not a manly thing to do. We chose to not help with the invasion of Iraq, we should not profit from it. Same applies to France, Germany and Russia.

As Bush doesn't speak for all americans, that Paul Martin guy does not speak for all canadians. And he wasn't elected either.

That's what I like about you, Chacal... you may be a commie-pinko ultra-left-leaning bleeding heart liberal, but you freely admit it, and stick to your principles... even us heartless conservatives have to respect that

Just curious, as I haven't followed the news much lately, but if he wasn't elected, how did he get to be PM?

by **Folic_Acid** » Wed Jan 14, 2004 9:40 am

Originally posted by Rule of Wrist
That's what I like about you, Chacal... you may be a commie-pinko ultra-left-leaning bleeding heart liberal, but you freely admit it, and stick to your principles... even us heartless conservatives have to respect that

Just curious, as I haven't followed the news much lately, but if he wasn't elected, how did he get to be PM?

I also respect that about you Chacal - although we may not agree, you at least stick to your principles. Cheers to you :beer:

As for PM Martin - I think he's been waiting in the wings for a while, hoping Chretien would eventually leave. Prior to being PM, Martin had served as Finance Minister. IIRC, he was pretty much annointed by Chretien to be the successor.

by **Chacal** » Wed Jan 14, 2004 11:40 am

He was elected as the new leader of the party when Chretien announced his retirement. So when Chretien left he became prime minister. The sad thing is, he'll probably stay in power when the next elections come.

by **Tommy Boy** » Wed Jan 14, 2004 12:05 pm

Unfotrunately, the Liberals are an embarassment in Canada but there is no real opposition. The NDP, although there is some life in them with Layton as the new Leader, have no substantial growth potential. The new "Conservative Party" is just a thinly veiled JOKE because they have taken over the Progressive Conservatives because the PC Leader was a liar and betrayed everyone.

The Tories where the only opposition, ubt now with them gone, and the REform/Alliance/Conservative party as the oppostiion, the Liberals will unfortunately be in power for a long time...

Don't even get me started about the Bloc Quebecois...

Canada needs so real political leadership and instead we get a political coronation with a virtual dictatorship!

by **Folic_Acid** » Wed Jan 14, 2004 12:54 pm

Originally posted by Tommy Boy
The Tories where the only opposition, ubt now with them gone, and the REform/Alliance/Conservative party as the oppostiion, the Liberals will unfortunately be in power for a long time...

Don't even get me started about the Bloc Quebecois...

Canada needs so real political leadership and instead we get a political coronation with a virtual dictatorship!

IMHO, the poor Alliance got screwed with Stockwell Day. They should've kept Preston Manning around instead - then I think the Alliance would be more of a real party, rather than the ragtag bunch they are now. And I still can't believe the NDP fell from grace so quickly. They've got what, like five seats now?

As for BQ, I'd say Canada should vote "Oui" and let M. Bouchard carry them all off the edge of a cliff. They don't want Canada, and I don't think Canada needs them. Then you could probably get rid of the silly dual language rule too.

So, I think you should be ready for the Liberals to be around for a nice long time. But, that's just my $.02.

by **Colonel Ingus** » Wed Jan 14, 2004 1:35 pm

Just a question here for you Canadians.

I thought the BC party wanted to split from Canada but keep the currency. Was that true? If so it seems like waffling and wanting the best of both worlds as any new currency they started wouldn't be near as strong as the Canadian dollar.

You want to go? fine. But you should be going all the way.

Of course there is an important lesson to be learned from your neighbor to the south. Look what happened when states tried to leave our Union. Might not be worth it.

by **Colonel Ingus** » Wed Jan 14, 2004 1:40 pm

He was elected as the new leader of the party when Chretien announced his retirement. So when Chretien left he became prime minister. The sad thing is, he'll probably stay in power when the next elections come.

Whoa just one moment there!

You mean there was no election by the people? Basically Chretien retires and the board of directors picks a new CEO?

I'm really curious if that is what happened I would like to know. I mean you may talk smack about us Americans but at least we give the appearance of a popular election.

If thats true I don't care what side of the aisle he is on its FUCKED! with a capital FUCKED!

by **=V!per=** » Wed Jan 14, 2004 2:13 pm

Originally posted by Tommy Boy

The Tories where the only opposition, ubt now with them gone,

Whoa! Weren't they the ones that wanted to stay as English citizens. At least historically in American history they were colonists who stayed loyal to the throne.

What are u Canadiens doing up there---- trying to form a coalition to surprise Americans and relinquish our lands to the "Mother Country"?

:lol:

Yeah I think that dual language rule is pretty interesting (as in "nativist":roll: ). I bet it's freakin' difficult to uphold.

by **Folic_Acid** » Wed Jan 14, 2004 2:14 pm

Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
Whoa just one moment there!

You mean there was no election by the people? Basically Chretien retires and the board of directors picks a new CEO?

I'm really curious if that is what happened I would like to know. I mean you may talk smack about us Americans but at least we give the appearance of a popular election.

If thats true I don't care what side of the aisle he is on its FUCKED! with a capital FUCKED!

Well, the Prime Minister is always a Member of Parliament first, so that's the election by the people. But, a parliamentary democracy is different from the US's republic. For example, the US has a federal government with the the chief executive being (more or less) directly elected by the people, as well as the representatives and senators being directly elected by the people that they represent.

In a parliamentary democracy, instead of voting for an individual member, the vote is for a party. Each MP are assigned to a particular "riding" (like our congressional districts) that he/she represents, though he/she may or may not even live there. The person who becomes PM is generally the leader of the majority party, or, in the case of a coalition government, the leader of the dominant party in the coalition. And, though the PM isn't the titular head of state, he functions as one.

So, to answer your question - yes, it's not the people who directly elect the country's leader, but rather the party.

Aha! Canadians!

Aha! Canadians!

Who is online