The “Fight for Canada”, did not happen in 1812, since Canada did not exist as a nation for decades later in 1867. The Department of “Canadian Heritage” ought to be ashamed of its atrocious rewriting and dumbing down of Canadian history by calling the War of 1812 a fight for Canada. Who wants to bet that the winning Canada Day “1812: Fight for Canada” entry will have a Canadian flag on it, even though that flag didn’t come into being until 1965? Where historical accuracy loses to artistic license, that art becomes propaganda.
The not-so Honourable Minister of Natural Resources has kicked up Harper’s attack on environmentalism. Fortunately there are some real journalists out there still to hold his feet to the pyre he’s hoping to toss us onto.
Creekside’s Alison has the hilarious transcript of our Minister acting like a jackass on air, being caught with the plain truth. If non-Canadians with money for the oil patch want to spread money around for political purposes, it’s fine, but if non-Canadians want to spend money with the idea of protecting humans from pollution, then they are radicals.
The Globe dug up a few of those local Canadian “radicals” who probably voted Conservative last election.
Mr. Oliver was quite forceful, warning that such groups “threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda.
There could not be a more hilarious case of an old pot calling a (stainless steel) kettle black. Oliver described the Conservative party’s corruption of our democracy to make radical ideological changes on their well known “secret” agenda (ending: CWB, gun registry, Insite, all without logic or facts to back up their position soundly).
What I find amazing in this article is that an NDP leadership candidate is proposing something I proposed the NDP, Liberals, and Greens try before the next general election: joint nomination meetings for key disputed ridings. If only 30 of these are successful, that should give the Conservatives some measure of defeat in the 2015 election.
Note that the article headline would also be true if there were at least 15 ethical Conservatives left willing to put their country before their party, and vote as independents, apart from the Conservative caucus. Sadly “ethical” and “Conservative” do not belong in the same sentence anymore I fear.
I can’t find my original article with my idea when I first pitched it, but it may be prior or perhaps after this comment toward the end of the comment thread. It could have been after 2011’s election I brought it up, or maybe only on Facebook for some reason.
Basically the Liberals, NDP, and Greens would agree to run only one candidate, the most successful party at organizing the largest nominating group would run the respective candidate. That way each party gets a chance to run their candidate, and the vote splitting falls away long enough for election reform to pass.