Game Over. Canada here I come. Democracy is dead, Fascism Rules

[Pryderi]

bye.

[KittyWampus]

1. good. Negative energy creates too many problems. Thanks for proving you were always part

of the problem.

[Cronus Protagonist]

2. Project much?

That post was exponentially more negative than the thread starter. IMHO.

[Political Heretic]

3. Frankly, "negative energy" has always been the driving force of change.

unrest moves change.

Being pissed off and negative about the status quo powers change.

[Echo In Light]

6. For many, unfavorable data = "negative" data since it doesn't fit into their Belief System

[KittyWampus]

11. Being pissed off, throwing the ball down and leaving the field changes nothing.

[Generator]

39. Yeah but you might get to live

while they round the other ones up. Paranoia can keep you alive. And beyond that-this country is a lie. I hate liars. It's not the greatest country on earth. Our military kills children to keep us "safe." I am so tired of lying, aren't you?

[Marr]

60. Absolutely. And people who are concerned about their "karma" rarely

accomplish jack shit.

[laughingliberal]

5. Cue the music..."Don't worry. Be happy." nt

[KittyWampus]

13. well, apparently you like "give up and go home". Who said anything about "happy"?

Answer that, please.

Did I post "be happy"?

Did I?

Thought not.

[laughingliberal]

30. Cue the other music. Don't worry. Be positive. Don't see much difference

As for home, no. I'd be happy to go as far from home as possible at this point. I just screwed up and waited too long to make it happen.

[jgraz]

8. And how, pray tell, are you part of the solution?

:shrug:

[KittyWampus]

14. Oh, another DU'er who has offered absolutely NOTHING pro-active. I just started googling Union

Card Legislation.

Posted a couple of threads about it.

They sank like stones.

[jgraz]

24. Uh huh. And your shit doesn't stink.

:eyes:

[Political Heretic]

25. That's because the time to care about that was twelve months ago.

When I was blitzing the boards about EFCA and everyone was telling me to STFU that we were focused on Health Care and "Obama can't do everything at once!"

So quietly, congress agreed to drop card check. It's not coming back. There's still "efca" legislation hanging out there in limbo, but that aspect of things is dead due to lack of support when it counted.

[Hannah Bell]

47. your pro-activity = googling & posting a couple of threads on card check at this late date?

jeez, glass houses.

[salguine]

21. You know, I've been seesawing back and forth for a while now about whether to

put you on Ignore. That snotty-ass post just made the decision for me.

[arcadian]

32. "Negative energy"? Sounds like some woo woo crap to me.

[laughingliberal]

43. Lol! nt

[Subdivisions]

49. This from the Queen of Negative Energy. n/t

[Joe Fields]

61. out of touch with reality much? I think so.

your cheerleading reminds me more of an ostrich with its head firmly buried in the sand.

[laughingliberal]

4. I'd have been there long ago but didn't look into emigrating til I was past the age

Looked into Australia and Canada who both would have taken me as an RN but I was 1 year over the age limit for an occupation of preference to relocate there. So, come what may, I'm stuck. Sadly, I find myself now hoping my life will be short.

[Edweird]

34. I'm looking into it myself. What age limit? I haven't seen anything about that.

Not being argumentative, I am concerned. That is my 'fallback'. I have a calender year until I qualify for a 'skilled worker' visa.

[laughingliberal]

41. Different for different countries and other factors add in

but, generally, I have seen 45 to be the limit, although other countries it may be younger. There may be other factors which could mitigate that but that's what I found when looking into getting out of here as an 'occupation of preference,' or, 'highly skilled worker.'


My mistake was not thinking of it sooner. I always believed we would be able to turn this country back around. It was when Bush stole the election in 2000 I realized we were done for. I looked into it then and I was just a few months from 45 without enough time to make any arrangements. I keep fantasizing there's some country out there that needs RN's badly enough to still take me even if just for a few years but I don't know how to get it arranged.

[Edweird]

45. Ok. Thank you.

I will be 40 when I get my license and then be qualified as a 'skilled worker' with a preferred occupation. If I get on it, I will just squeak by. I believe three years of permanent residence then you get your citizenship. That may end up being my plan.

[laughingliberal]

46. Sounds like you have a good shot. I wish you luck

I keep wishing there was some long lost relative in another country who would come to light and want to sponsor me to live there. No chance but I have to fantasize about something cause it's driving me nuts to think I'm stuck here until I die.

[dalaigh lllama]

7. Can't remember when I've been this demoralized about our future

too old to emigrate, tho.

[tridim]

12. Are you more demoralized now than you were in 2002?

If so, I really would like to know why.

I can't believe that even Democrats are starting to give the BushCo years a pass. Never forget.

[laughingliberal]

31. We're not giving the Bush years a pass. We'd like to stop building on their policies now, please. nt

[Maru Kitteh]

33. I am.

This SCOTUS ruling is WAY bigger than most people realize.

There will never be another Presidential candidate who can run with even the mildest scent of genuine populism on his or her lapel. They will be shut down long before you even knew they existed.

If you thought corporations and industries paid a pittance in taxes before, hold on. They own the government now.

Lock stock and barrel.

The list goes on, but it's way too depressing to enumerate right now.

[dalaigh lllama]

35. No, I don't give the Bush years a pass. I just think we've run out of time

I had a steadily growing rage against all things Bush since 2000, but in the back of my mind I always thought if we just got rid of the major idiots we could turn things around. We've had one year to do so and it just wasn't enough time. Now the corporations have pretty much had the country handed to them on a silver platter, and no matter how much Obama or any well-meaning congress people might protest, they're going to get run over by corporate propaganda and we've all witnessed just how susceptible people are to that.

Sorry -- I'm not usually a Debbie Downer. Time for me to take a break from here I guess.

[tridim]

42. At the very least, the administration has immediately stated their objection to the ruling..

Had this ruling occured in 2002, nothing would have even been said. BushCo would have shouted it from the rooftops as a victory.

BushCo was orders of magnitude worse than the Obama Administration on its worst day. It's not even close.

[laughingliberal]

44. Well, that's something but unless they have some plan to get around it the results will be the same

In other words, when the football game ends, the score is what matters and the number of fans in the stands matters not.

[Oregone]

9. About time more people see the light

Start here:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/EnGLish/immigrate/skilled/assess/Education.asp

[tridim]

10. Canada is becoming more conservative and regressive by the day.

It isn't Utopia.

[Lautremont]

18. It is not, true,

but more and more people are waking up to the minor-league Bush clone that is Harper, and he'll be gone one day soon.

[tridim]

20. I don't know, will they wake up?

Canada really isn't all that different than the Corporate States of America any more.

Most of us were wrong about Mass voters too.

[Hannah Bell]

48. he may be, but the same neo-lib/fundie infrastructure is being planted --

it's been happening for years.

canada is no safe haven. neither is europe. the fascist turn is global, a movement of the world capitalist class.

[NeeDeep]

15. So let's dump America and tuck our tails???

I don't think so, it's always the ones who care and are willing to sacrifice something that shows they care who effect change, don't give in to uncaring masses.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[glitch]

16. Silly, Canada's next. nt

[Motown_Johnny]

17. I was thinking Sweden, Canada is to close

I am within 10 miles driving distance of Canada right now... More like 3 "as the crow flies"

[Angry Dragon]

19. I often wonder what this country will look like

when your children and grand children are in charge............

[Shagbark Hickory]

22. Saying it is one thing...I admire anyone who can actually do it. You'll need lots of $$$

Saying it is one thing...I admire anyone who can actually do it.
I have been criticized in the past for saying that similar to how when a customer is unhappy with the service they receive from a business, that a citizen in this country can go shopping for a new country.

It's all well and good to say we should all stay here and fight and it takes time blah blah blah. But people like you and me don't stand a chance against the corporations and special interests. They are the ones that are directing the show. It's really become quite clear that we are powerless.

That said, Canada has a number of things going for it but it does appear to be incredibly expensive. The lifestyle .... would appear to be a balance of constant shivering, living in an indistinguishable cluster home, and paying a lot more for stuff.
I'm suspicious of Canada because they supposedly are more progressive thinking but they have a conservative leader and like many pointed out, the same corporate forces want to dismantle everything that we like about Canada.

And it always seems like the easy place to move to. At least have the courage to move overseas, some would say.

Anyway, I'm rooting you on. If you aren't happy with the way things are going, your opportunities (ESPECIALLY your opportunities) are not to your liking, and your government isn't doing it's job despite your protests and actions, then you've done everything anyone could be reasonably expected to do and I'd say you'd be foolish not to leave.

[StarfarerBill]

23. Fah. Corporatism has ruled in this country for decades;

it can just come completely out in the open, now.

[FourScore]

27. Buh-bye.

[hunter]

28. The fascist thing they are building can't live.

It is already rotting from within.

I think I'm going to hang around and watch it die.

[Echo In Light]

53. Vis a vis the denial & ignorance of a brainwashed populace, sure it can, has, & will continue on

A square is a circle, so long as various social managers throughout a child's upbringing conditions young minds to perceive it as such. That's the chief defining aspect of America; get a large a % as possible to abide un-reality as reality.

[Marr]

62. It can live for a good long time, I expect.

I think we're watching the sun going down, not the darkness before the sunrise. We seem to be an empire in decline, and I have to wonder what this country is going to look like when the government is for sale to the highest bidder, and most of the highest bidders are Chinese autocrats.

It will improve when people get fed up enough to break the system, take the pummeling their government gives them in return, and then break it some more. I don't think we're anywhere near that point.

[valerief]

29. Sure does look that way. I worked my whole life putting money into Medicare and Social Security so

that I WON'T get it.

Wonder when my 401K will evaporate.

TAX DOLLARS = WAR

[Ganja Ninja]

36. Maybe global warming will finally make it habitable. n/t

[treestar]

37. You might want to check Canada's campaign laws first

Make sure they aren't as bad or worse.

And they don't have to take you, unless you qualify under the immigration laws. You would not break another country's immigration laws, would you?

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[highplainsdem]

52. You might want to as well. Here's a link to a page giving an overview and history

of their limits on election spending by third parties (not third political parties but "any individual or group other than a candidate or a registered political party") --

http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=pol&document=thiinf&dir=thi&lang=e&textonly=false


Their attitude seems much more enlightened than our Supreme Court's:

In 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Libman v. Quebec (Attorney General), which concerned third party spending under the Referendum Act of Quebec, shed new light on the issue by addressing the reasoning offered by the Alberta Court of Appeal in the Somerville case. It found that fostering equality of participation, through the limitation of third party expenditures, was a valid legislative objective. The court also stated that third party regulations are designed "to permit an informed choice to be made by ensuring that some positions are not buried by others" and "to preserve the confidence of the electorate in a democratic process that it knows will not be dominated by the power of money." At the same time, the Court ruled that s. 404 of the Quebec Referendum Act, which virtually ruled out third party spending, was too restrictive. (In 1998, Quebec's Referendum Act and Election Act were amended to allow "private intervenors" to spend up to $300 on "publicity expenses" to advertise the intervenor's views on a matter of public interest but "without directly promoting or opposing a candidate or a party.")

-snip-

April 12, 2000 –Appearing before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs during its review of Bill C-2, the Chief Electoral Officer stated that "the most significant new provision in Bill C-2 concerns the introduction of a regime that extends spending limits and financial disclosure requirements to...third parties." He referred to court decisions, including Somerville and Libman, and provided examples where third parties are regulated at the provincial level in Canada and the United States. The Chief Electoral Officer did not comment on the level of the spending limits for third party advertising.

Senate – Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Evidence – Bill C-2 – Meeting No. 14, pp. 1–50

Source: Parliament of Canada Web site – http://www.parl.gc.ca

October 11, 2000 – In his Outline of Evidence in Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), the Chief Electoral Officer stated that "unlimited election advertising by third parties undermines the...political equality of citizens, as it would if there were no limits on political parties or candidates." He added that limits on third party election advertising do not prevent third party advertising, "but rather keep the differences between citizens within set boundaries."

Outline of the Evidence of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada in Harper v. Canada (Attorney General) – (not available on-line)

October 11, 2000 – Testifying before the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench in Harper v. Canada (Attorney General) –in which it was argued that ss. 323(1) and (3), 350–360 and 362 of the new Canada Elections Act contravened the freedoms of expression and association as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – the Chief Electoral Officer, acting as an intervenor, expressed his view that third party controls are "capital for the structure of the Canada Elections Act" and that without them, "that very structure is attacked at its core." The Chief Electoral Officer also referred to American studies and court cases on the issue. Responding to questions on the registration and reporting requirements for third parties, the Chief Electoral Officer stated that all this information is related to the "public's right to know who is contributing." He was not asked about nor did he comment on the level of the spending limits for third party advertising.

Transcript of Testimony of the Chief Electoral Officer in Harper v. Canada (Attorney General) – (not available on-line)

October 22, 2000 – The Chief Electoral Officer issued a press release about the new limits on third party election advertising for the election that was then in progress. The Chief Electoral Officer added that there were also registration, reporting and disclosure requirements that applied to third parties.

Press release: New Rules on the Role of Third Parties in a Federal Election

Source: Elections Canada: Media: Press Releases and Media Advisories

October 26, 2000 – The Chief Electoral Officer issued a press release following the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal to uphold an injunction by the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench. The injunction prevented Elections Canada "from enforcing the spending limits in s. 350 of the Canada Elections Act" during the election that was then in progress until the Court made a final judgment on the constitutionality of the third party provisions. The Chief Electoral Officer stated: "It is in the public interest that the law be applied uniformly in a federal general election." "The injunction will apply to all of Canada," he added. The Chief Electoral Officer noted that the other third party provisions in the Canada Elections Act remained in force, including the requirement to register as a third party and to report on the sources of funding for third party advertising.

Press release: Chief Electoral Officer Announces His Position on the Application of the Alberta Court Decision on Third Parties

Source: Elections Canada: Media: Press Releases and Media Advisories

November 10, 2000 – The Chief Electoral Officer issued a press release announcing that the Supreme Court of Canada had suspended the injunction issued by the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta until the Supreme Court had heard the appeal of the injunction. He indicated that Elections Canada would not apply the spending limits on third party election advertising for the period between October 22 and November 10, 2000. The Chief Electoral Officer added that "further to the Supreme Court's decision, s. 350 of the Canada Elections Act will be in force for the remainder of the federal election."

Press release: Chief Electoral Officer Announces His Position on the Application of the Supreme Court Decision on Third Parties

Source: Elections Canada: Media: Press Releases and Media Advisories

November 27, 2000 – In a major survey that was part of the 2000 Canadian Election Study, 80.7% of respondents thought that "it is a good thing" to limit the amount of money that individuals and groups (other than candidates and parties) can spend to advertise their support for a party or a policy during an election campaign; 84.5% thought that "it is a good thing" to require individuals and groups who advertise during an election campaign to make public how much they have spent.

Canadian Election Study – 2000 Canadian Election

Source: http://www.fas.umontreal.ca/pol/ces-eec/

March 19, 2001 – The Report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada on the 37th General Election Held on November 27, 2000 was submitted to Parliament. Following a summary of the legislative provisions on third party advertising, the report provided a chronology of the case Harper v. Canada (Attorney General). The report indicated that the Chief Electoral Officer had appeared before the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, where he reiterated his recommendations to Parliament about the underlying principles of disclosure and spending limits, and about the importance of a level playing field for all who intervene in the electoral process. The report highlighted that the Chief Electoral Officer had not commented on the level or the appropriateness of the limits chosen by Parliament.

Report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada on the 37th General Election Held on November 27, 2000 – pp. 68–70

Source: Elections Canada

-snip-

May 18, 2004 – The Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision in Harper v. Canada (Attorney General). The nine-member court ruled unanimously that ss. 323 and 352–360, which include the limits on third party election advertising as well as registration and reporting requirements adopted in 2000, were constitutional. However, in the case of section 350, which prescribes the level of third party spending limits, a minority of three justices declared that provision to be unconstitutional, as well as section 351, which prohibits third parties from colluding to circumvent limits.

Supreme Court of Canada <2004> S.C.C. No. 33

May 18, 2004 – The Chief Electoral Officer issued a press release announcing the position of Elections Canada on enforcement of the third party provisions in the Canada Elections Act in light of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Harper v. Canada (Attorney General). The Chief Electoral Officer stated that all the provisions adopted in 2000 "are once again in force across Canada," including the limits on third party election advertising and the registration and reporting requirements.

[HughMoran]

38. lol

:rofl:

cute.

[Lex]

50. You have NO IDEA how hard it is to get permanent resident status in Canada.

Good luck with that.

[krabigirl]

55. Maybe he has a Canadian spouse?

[Lex]

63. Maybe he's an American who thinks he's entitled to

live anywhere he wants to move. I find that Americans forget that not every country wants them taking their jobs and using their social bennies.

[demokatgurrl]

65. Not a shoe-in but not at all impossible

I researched it a couple of years ago. If you have a college degree or a marketable skill (e.g., carpentry, electrician etc) or can do certain jobs for which there is a big need, you can get in. They have a point system. What killed me was I am too old (mid 50s).

[Lex]

66. Impossible? No.

But it seems just about every whiner thinks they can "move to Canada" like it's the spare bedroom.

[cherokeeprogressive]

51. Buh Bye. Too bad you don't think this country is worth your time and effort.

As for me, it's the country of my birth and I'll stay here 'til I die, working and fighting the good fight.

[obliviously]

54. First time I've ever seen one off your posts anyway , Oh well Bye!

[tranche]

56. I'm sure Canada is thrilled to welcome another whiney American.

If they're smart they'll tell you to turn your ass right back around.

[Lex]

64. "Hi, I'd like to take one of your jobs & use your social/medical benefits."

Oh sure come right in.

:eyes:

[Bonobo]

57. In the course of history...

Rational people have made rational decisions about when it is time to leave a country that is failing to take care of its people.

Those people are your ancestors. It is why you are here and alive today.

Think about it.

Good decision.

[proteus_lives]

58. Go ahead. Rabbit.

The grass isn't any greener on the other side.

[Throd]

59. Please take some snivelers with you.

[Roland99]

67. Don't let the door hit you

[Pryderi]

68. I've knocked on thousands of doors and made thousands of phone calls, donated 100s of

dollars from my meager income and thought that Democrats taking over Congress and Obama winning the Presidency was going to make things better. However, the SCOTUS decision leads me to believe that our nation is headed back into the crapper.

The Bush-Cheney nominations to the SCOTUS look to me to be the end of democracy for the US...at least for another generation or two, unless a couple/few of the conservative justices croak and/or meet their demise in the next few months.

I feel as bad now, if not worse, now than I did in November of 2004.

Screw the few of you here that call me a quitter and have never really lifted a finger except to post a message on a blog or here at DU.