Page 1 of 1

Two parties, one choice, or is it two choices, one party?

PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:47 am
by Dukasaur
As the Canadian elections kick off, I am delighted to read this absolutely brilliant analysis by Andrew Coyne:
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-two-parties-one-choice-or-is-it-two-choices-one-party?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=recommended_articles
Andrew Coyne wrote:The two main parties, after all, could not be more different. The one, it is well known, is little more than a personality cult centred on the leader, while the other is a personality cult, minus the personality. The first is notably bereft of any governing philosophy or principles but will say and do whatever it takes to win, while the second will say and do whatever it takes to lose.

Of course, both parties have from time to time had their share of scandals, a Wright-Duffy here, an SNC-Lavalin there, but with a critical difference. For whereas the Liberals abuse power because they can — because being so often in government and so accustomed to its pleasures, no one expects them to do any differently — the Conservatives do so because they must: because being so rarely in government, they are at every disadvantage, between an uncooperative bureaucracy and a hostile media, and need recourse to every expedient just to even the scales. Or because the Liberals did it first. Or just because.

On the issues, too, voters face a profound, nay, a historic choice. It is a choice between a party that has run deficits for the last four years, and a party that would run deficits for the next five; between a party that negotiated free trade deals with the United States, Europe and Asia, and a party that negotiated free trade deals with Asia, Europe and the United States; between a party that held health-care transfers to the provinces to increase by no more than the rate of growth in GDP, and a party that has increased health-care transfers by no less than the growth in GDP.

It is a choice between a party that makes no secret of its opposition to electoral reform and a party that very successfully made a secret of it; between a party that repeatedly smuggled legislation past Parliament via gargantuan omnibus bills, invoked “time allocation” motions to cut off debate and held its members captive to the most rigid system of party discipline in the democratic world, and a party that said it would not do any of these things.

It is a choice between a party that, in its time in office, failed to build a single pipeline to tidewater, and a party that has failed, in its time in office, to build a single pipeline to tidewater; between a party that has no realistic plan to meet the targets for greenhouse gas emissions to which they both have committed, and a party that has a plan that is even less realistic.

Re: Two parties, one choice, or is it two choices, one party

PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:19 am
by NomadPatriot
Dukasaur wrote:[quote=Andrew Coyne"]The two main parties, after all, could.....


not to try to 'derail the thread " & get some sort of official warning from you.. Ducky..
but you need to fix your Quote .. you forgot the 1st quotation marks before Andrew..

just here to help you be a better CC Staff member..

Nomad = A Better Tomorrow
:D

Re: Two parties, one choice, or is it two choices, one party

PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 2:38 am
by Dukasaur
NomadPatriot wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:[quote=Andrew Coyne"]The two main parties, after all, could.....


not to try to 'derail the thread " & get some sort of official warning from you.. Ducky..
but you need to fix your Quote .. you forgot the 1st quotation marks before Andrew..

just here to help you be a better CC Staff member..

Nomad = A Better Tomorrow
:D

:lol:

Thanks.

Even I have been known to make a mistake...:)

Re: Two parties, one choice, or is it two choices, one party

PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 9:58 am
by armati
"It is a choice between a party that, in its time in office, failed to build a single pipeline to tidewater"

That would be both parties over the last 100 years.
Or, maybe I dont know of one that did get built.

George Carlin Politicians
https://youtu.be/07w9K2XR3f0

Re: Two parties, one choice, or is it two choices, one party

PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 10:54 am
by Dukasaur
armati wrote:"It is a choice between a party that, in its time in office, failed to build a single pipeline to tidewater"

That would be both parties over the last 100 years.
Or, maybe I dont know of one that did get built.

I think that was exactly his point -- that they are both identical, except for cosmetics.

Andrew Coyne wrote:It is a choice between a party that, in its time in office, failed to build a single pipeline to tidewater, and a party that has failed, in its time in office, to build a single pipeline to tidewater;

(Emphasis added.)

Note the parallelism with the other points of comparison:
a choice between a party that has run deficits for the last four years, and a party that would run deficits for the next five

between a party that negotiated free trade deals with the United States, Europe and Asia, and a party that negotiated free trade deals with Asia, Europe and the United States

between a party that held health-care transfers to the provinces to increase by no more than the rate of growth in GDP, and a party that has increased health-care transfers by no less than the growth in GDP

etc.

Re: Two parties, one choice, or is it two choices, one party

PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:13 pm
by armati
I dont believe it makes a dif who/which party is in office.
I havnt for years.
I dont think thats unique thinking.

Course to splain how/why is all conspiracy theory. :roll:

Re: Two parties, one choice, or is it two choices, one party

PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 2:34 pm
by Dukasaur
armati wrote:I dont believe it makes a dif who/which party is in office.
I havnt for years.
I dont think thats unique thinking.

Course to splain how/why is all conspiracy theory. :roll:


Yeah, it's not exactly a unique thought. I thought Andrew phrased it beautifully, though, which was why I posted it.

Why do you think it has something to do with conspiracy theories?

Re: Two parties, one choice, or is it two choices, one party

PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:23 pm
by armati
I dont think its a conspiracy at all, other than there is more than 1 person involved.
When it gets explained to people THEY call it a conspiracy theory.

To find out all about it, and whats been going on, worldwide, you need to follow the banks.

As soon as I say that most people will say "conspiracy theory".
Which of course means "fantasy" not worth looking at.

But, if u or anyone is interested, what really affects us today begins at Waterloo 1815, actually a little before that but that battle was when Nathan(I think) Rothchild took over the bank of England by buying up the bonds.
He made everyone believe Wellington lost, so the investors sold their shares cheap, Rothchild bought them all immediately, then informed everyone that Wellington won.
(Rothchild had riders watching the battle and a small boat waiting at the coast)
Sneaky on his part but it worked, he essentially ended up owning the bank of England.

From there, his sons took control of the central banks of Europe, in 1913 the federal reserve was put in place in the U.S. and ever since its been the same bank all over the west.
That same bank has expanded all over the world except for n Korea(enemy)Iran (enemy)Syria(enemy) etc
Just in case anyone was wondering why these places are our enemies.

Thats just a basic outline, there are wheels within wheels in the story, like Rothchild buying Israel off a sultan,the Balfour declaration and so on.

There is religious stuff to the story, the world gets ruled by Talmudic Jews from the Temple on the mount, as per the Talmud.
All goy exist to serve.

The banks thru lobby groups such as aipac control the politicians, like Ilhan Omar says "its all about the benjamins".
Therefore, it makes no dif who is pres or who the prime minister is, either party takes direction.

That can be recognized if you know what ur looking for, for example, Justin echoing Russia invaded Crimea or ur buddy there Andrew Coyne.

Some people see it.

Re: Two parties, one choice, or is it two choices, one party

PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:55 pm
by Dukasaur
Okay, you are spinning it into a conspiracy theory.

No, the parties aren't all the same because of some dead Rothschild.

The reasons are far more prosaic. They're all the same because they're under the same constraints and chasing the same votes. It's the same reason all the burger joints taste the same -- they start with the same basic product and they're doing the same things with it to please basically the same group of people. They try to make theirs sound different, but if it's too different nobody will buy it, so they come back to home base.

Re: Two parties, one choice, or is it two choices, one party

PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:17 pm
by armati
You have zero imagination.

Re: Two parties, one choice, or is it two choices, one party

PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 7:10 pm
by Bentelbow
I do believe the Kinder-Morgan pipeline currently runs from Alberta to Vancouver...

Re: Two parties, one choice, or is it two choices, one party

PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 9:28 pm
by armati
It does. but its not big enough.

I dont think it matters as much as it did awhile ago.

China is getting oil from Iran now as well as Russia, they have no need of Canadian oil anymore.

Russia is in great position to supply east asia as well as europe and Iran can also supply India, so it kinda looks like the U.S. will remain Canadas #1 customer.

Another thing, the world is kinda awash in oil right now, Russia is preparing for $25 oil, ouch.