A reader sent this scan described as “the back cover of a CD-ROM distributed to Indians by Elections Canada last winter”.
Click for larger version.
I guess it’s a small thing. But one can’t help but notice how helpful it was of civil servants to rhetorically direct First Nations voters towards specific matters they ought to concern themselves with. Conpicuously absent are mention of “rebuilding the military”, “reforming the justice system”, “tax relief” and other issues typically associated with conservative values.
It’s no secret that low turnout among native Canadians in elections has been a long standing problem – but did no one at Elections Canada ask if it was not just a little presumptious to link voting preference with racial identity?
If you’re stiill having trouble putting your finger on what’s wrong with this, turn the question around and imagine the reaction had Elections Canada directed advertising at an middle class neighborhood of predominantly European extraction to suggest that concerns over land claims and casino gambling might be a good reason to get out and cast a ballot.
EC is a rogue Liberal entity. All we have to look at is the riding of Churchill-Missinippi Mills–there the Indians were encouraged to vote by being given a raffle ticket for a large screen TV, and EC saw nothing wrong with this. This is a largely a Native riding.
This is racist beyond belief and yet no one will call them on it. EC is a LPOC shill–and proud of it! Hope the CPC sees this.
I don’t see anything wrong with encouraging voting by focusing on local issues. That happens in every riding, where the vote is based around the local contextual problems – as well as the larger national issues.
The problem with this brochure is two-fold. First is its hypocrisy in implying that a vote for representation in the House of Commons will have any effect whatsoever on the native-only issues mentioned in the brochure (land claims, reserves). And the second is the so-general-as-to-be-meaningless issues of clean air, going to war, and the utterly mindless ‘the arts’.
This means that there is some kind of deep structural gap between Indian Affairs and the elected government; that is, there is no direct connection between the two. A native voting for House of Commons representation doesn’t affect that enormous monolithic empire that is the Department of Indian Affairs.
The natives at Caledonia realized that terrorism, i.e., non-democratic, unlawful and criminal actions provide far greater political and economic results than any electoral actions.
True enough … but how many conservatives typically reach out to natives? It’s the same with Republicans and blacks in the USA – beliefs among blacks span the political spectrum, but when one party repeatedly casts blacks as a problem or gets votes from others groups (rurual conservatives) by demonozing blacks, then blacks in general would tend to avoid Republicans (even the churchgoers). Similarly, it’s hard to hear much about natives from conservative quarters that don’t deal with violent mobs or land claims.
So yes, this was a partisan move that was slightly patronizing … but it will probably happen again without protest due to the history of the parties.
Cynapse in Winnipeg the only native elected was Consertave.
A few years back i read a write up by Scott Adams [dilbert] Who said the same thing if you turn an argument around and it suddenly isn’t fair then it probably wasn’t before then.
DrWright, would you agree or disagree with the following:
1) Conservatives don’t target the native vote
2) When conservatives target native issues (land rights, etc) it is done so to court the rural vote
The CPC ran more minority candidates than any other party last election; that doesn’t mean they are necessarily after the votes of those respective groups. Harper has been very particular about the votes he’s chasing (rural, military, Chinese, East Indian, Quebec).
Cynapse,
The difference between the Dems and GOP in the US is that the Dems are a party of old rich white men who like to pretend to be inclusive and the GOP appointed blacks to a whack of cabinet and supreme court positions.
The Dems want to be the champions of poor minorities (while keeping them poor and excluding them from power.) The GOP wants minorities to be as rich as everyone else and promoted based on each person’s ability – which the GOP sees as equal.
How many blacks did Kerry surround himself with? Zero.
How many blacks (aside from photo ops with Sharpton) did Clinton surround himself with?
Compare that to Bush. Either jr or sr.
The dems also resort to the most foul, base racist attacks against any minority that dares disagree with them. Everything has been done blacks running or working for the GOP, “uncle tom” “house n***er” throwing Oreo cookies at state senate candidates… All in the name of liberal tolerance.
The left are the racists and hypocritical to boot.
I can go a looooong way back on this one. Just about 50 years ago we used to play hockey against the Indians at Morley. The guys were great and they used to take us to the gym after a game and put on quite a feed. The outcome was a relationship that lasts to this day and some of the stories I was told about the government over the years I’m not even sure I believe. The bottom line was, I’ll call him Jim, they all thought the white man was stupid. It really does pay not to look after the house that you were given, why? Because the stupid white man will build you another so why bother. Vote! That would give whitey the idea that we knew what was going on and that we really cared about who won. Jim would always get a good laugh from all by going into his clipped Indian English stating he was just a dumb bush Indian. Jim just happens to be a very close friend and long ago left the reserve, he also happens to be one of the smartest people I know and hates the Indian Affairs with a passion. It’s like he says, wouldn’t you hate someone that gives all the money to a few [Chiefs} and keeps the rest in poverty. That pamphlet that was handed out by elections Canada, I bet it got quite a laugh.
Warwick … fair enough, but you are referring mostly to the George W Bush type of conservative that is more interested in money and general morals. Prior to him there was still the “Southern Strategy” GOPer typified by Jesse Helms, pre-Reform Pat Buchanan and much of the Southern Baptist types. They want to turn back the clock to before the 60’s.
The CPC is not that extreme; my point was simply that natives are not a constituency of interest, before or during Stephen Harper. All Harper has done so far is torpedo Paul Martin’s promises. He’s been MIA in the land/logging disputes. Native concerns don’t seem to be his concern (for now).
I disagree with you, Cynapse, in your conclusion that IF a gov’t votes on a selected issue, it is only because they want votes from that community.
You are reducing government to a popularity contest, implying that the only task of a government is its own power, i.e., staying in power. That was certainly the mandate of the Liberal Party, for it had/has no policies.
However, a genuine gov’t cannot be focused only on popularity and its own power, but must govern for the people. Therefore, its decisions must also be based on policies and principles, not just for votes.
I agree with you that Harper wants the Quebec vote. That is because, unfortunately, our dysfunctional constitution, the Charter, has set up a situation where Quebec is the lynch pin of our federal gov’t; it is guaranteed, regardless of its population base, 75 seats in the House. That means that Quebec is constitutionally set up as the key between a minority/majority gov’t.
How do any honest principles of a political party get around this enormous road block? They can’t. And of course, as I keep ranting about, the constitutional requirement for bilingualism, sets up Quebecers as the majority of our civil service and key decision roles in our gov’t (including the military, RCMP, judicial, funding agencies, CBC, etc, etc).
As for your other ‘populations’ – I disagree that they are identifiable and distinct. There’s no such thing as a military population. But it is a general issue, for Canada can’t remain a snide observer of the world, protected by all the other countries who actually go out into the field.
Harper’s policies about, for example, street racing and crime, have little to do with rural issues. But they are policies required for the well-being of Canadians.
East Indian? The Chinese vote is a blip; I certainly don’t agree with his decision but consider it minor.
I think the problem with the brochure is its hypocrisy – in that the elected representatives have little authority over that huge empire that is Indian Affairs.
Odd how the CD focuses on liberal strawman issues.
Perhaps the liberal machine, ( which is also firmly entrenched in bureaucracy ranks) is following the US Dem agenda of creating a state “plantation” relationship with minority communities like the dems did with inner city blacks…installing a corrupt ethnic leadership who encourage the community to remain reliant on Dem/liberal largess…..the native constituency being probably the largest benefactor of Liberal “plantation” largesse, corruption and dependeancy in this nation.
In the past 2 decades there have been many election results that indicate the native constituency isn’t the bait and vote plantation culture that the Liberals believe it to be…but old Libral matras and reflexes die hard.
The eastern types and especially Ottawa bureaucrats have “white man’s burden.” That’s why aboriginals hate INAC and the paternalistic policies they peddle.
I think “Western Canadian” hits the nail on the head. In my travels to reserves, most folks don’t give a crap about the system, because they know it doesn’t matter. Only stupid Ottawa types would think aboriginal apathy is ignorance. Most Canadians are apathetic about most things. Why focus on aboriginals?
Unknowingly racist self righteous white government workers who think they are saving the world are in fact the largest inhibitor of aboriginal success. The government do-righters treat aboriginals like children and pat them on the head.
Ronald Reagan once said, government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.
Election Canada “target markets”:
Information for …
>Aboriginal voters
>Voters from ethnocultural communities
>Canadian Forces electors
>Voting by Canadians Outside Canada
tinyurl.com/jx6jp
Interesting that Elections Canada took the time to select photos of individuals representing the aboriginal community. While the same 3 stock photos of ‘Canadians’ were used to represent people from all various “ethnocultural communities”.
It appears that anyone can order Seekers: Take a Stand! Make a Difference! Since I helped for it’s production, I think I’ll order a copy to add to my CD collection:
tinyurl.com/f86bt
I disagree that the First Nations suffers from low voter turnout. If you look at polls on reserves in the last two elections especially in Regina Qu’appelle you’ll find that the voter turnout was close to 90% on reserves. And of course 90% of the votes went Liberal.
At least in Sask. there is no problem with First Nations voter turnout on reserves.
they missed :
Blockades,burning bridges, welfare cheques.
Cynapse:
Southern strategy? You’ve been reading Dem talking points that aim to re-write the past in a way that reverses the truth – that the Dems are the party of Black and the GOP are the racists. This is Orwell at it’s worst. The truth is the reverse.
Ever heard of the Dixiecrats? i.e. Southern Democrats? Or “Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, the former “Keagle” in the Ku Klux Klan who waged a 14-hour filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act?”
“In 1964, it took the leadership of Republican Minority Leader Everett Dirksen to break the filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill led by Byrd, and more Republicans than Democrats voted for the bill. Recently, Senator Dodd praised Senator Byrd as someone who would have been “a great senator for any moment,” including the Civil War. Democrats who denounced Senator Trent Lott for his remarks about Senator Strom Thurmond have remained silent about Senator Dodd’s racist remarks. Mr. Thurmond was never a member of the Klan and he defended blacks against the poll tax and lynching. If Mr. Byrd and Mr. Thurmond were alive during the Civil War and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.
In the early 1970’s Byrd pushed to have the Senate’s main office building named after Democrat Senator Richard Russell, Byrd’s mentor and leading opponent of anti-lynching legislation. In 2001, Byrd was forced to apologize for using the N-word on TV. Three years after Byrd said he’d left his white sheeted brethren behind, he wrote to Georgia’s Grand Imperial Wizard, saying: “The Klan is needed today as never before.” Byrd was also a fierce opponent of desegregating the military, complaining in one letter: “I should rather die a thousand times and see old glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen of the wilds.”
The Dixiecrats were a group of Southern Democrats who, in the 1948 national election, ran a third party ticket that supported the Jim Crow Laws and racial segregation. Even so, they continued to be Democrats for all local and state elections, as well as for all future national elections. Since the Republican Party was founded as the anti-slavery party, Southern Democrats declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than vote for a Republican. Today, some of those Dixiecrats continue their political careers as Democrats. The most notable examples are Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia who is well known for having been a “Keagle” in the Ku Klux Klan, and Democrat Senator Ernest Hollings who put up the Confederate flag over the state capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina. The South did not begin the switch to the Republican Party until the late 1970s with President Richard Nixon’s Southern Strategy. Georgia did not switch until 2002. Southern Democrats who switched to the Republican Party did so because they got over their dislike for the Republican Party as the party for blacks and adopted the Republican Party’s core values: lower taxes, limited government, personal responsibility and equal opportunities for all Americans.”
I’ll include the link in a separate post so it isn’t whacked by the spam filter…
As for the CPC, they don’t believe in treating citizens differently based on Race. This includes “natives.”
Neither did Chrétien before he changed his mind. He was an early advocate of the elimination of “native” rights and was Indian Affairs minister when the Liberals brought out the “white paper” which recommended the elimination of treaties in the constitution.
http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.democrats
There’s lots more if you google it…
I think we have to realize that EC, Indian Affairs, Environment Canada, LPC, Canada’s Main Stream Media, all rank right up there with the best of the PROPAGANDA MACHINES that the world has seen. Including Pravda. Not a strech, in my opinion. How else can you explain the likes of Enviro-C, under the Liberals, spending Billions promoting the Kyoto Protocol. A UN hoax based on the now defunct “hockey stick” graph. No matter if one is Left, Right, or Centre, Democracy is something to constantly be on guard for. Propaganda has brought down many a good country.
This is the best damn article on the racists in the democratic party I’ve ever read:
RACIST DEMOCRATS:
The Truth About the Pursuit of Black Freedom
…
The Democratic Party became the majority party in Congress in 1818. In 1820 House Democrats passed the Missouri Compromise permitting slavery in half of the federal territories, reversing a previous law made in 1789. The Democrats remained in control for the next 30 years, and in 1850 passed the Fugitive Slave Law. Under this new law, if a black person used to be a slave, or was ever accused of being a slave, they 1. Lost their right to representation by an attorney 2. Lost their right to trial by jury and 3. Lost their right to habeas corpus. Then, in 1854, the Democrats passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which extended slavery north of the line (36-30) originally drawn by the Missouri Compromise.
In reaction to the long line of racist policies of the Democrats, the Republican Party was formed in 1854. Their first platform contained nine planks, six of which dealt with civil rights including ending slavery, ending segregation, and extending full civil rights to blacks. It shouldn’t surprise you then that out of the first 23 blacks elected to Congress, 13 were ex-slaves and ALL 23 WERE REPUBLICAN. In fact, it wasn’t until 1935 ‘till the first black Democrat was elected to Congress (and that was from the Northern free state of Illinois – a southern Democrat wasn’t elected to Congress until 1973 when the Supreme Court forced the Democratic Party in Texas to redraw their lines so a black could be elected).
In 1866-1867 the Democrats started the KKK, whose stated purpose was to stop Republicans and restore Democratic control in the South. In 1867 the KKK attacked the Republican National Convention in Louisiana, referred to as the New Orleans Massacre, killing 40 blacks and 20 whites. In 1868 the KKK put out a push card in South Carolina that listed the 63 most radical members of the legislature that needed to be wiped out. Fifty of the members were black, 13 were white, and ALL 63 WERE REPUBLICAN. During hearings in Congress regarding the Ku Klux Klan Act in 1872, the Democrats admitted the Klan was a part of the Democratic Party. Like Democratic Senator Ben Tillman of South Carolina said, “We reorganized the Democratic Party with one plank, and only one plank, namely that this is a white man’s country and white men must govern it.” One can only hope they don’t still believe such sentiments, considering America’s oldest political party had failed to elect a single black to the United States Senate until 1992.
It is the Republican Party that can proudly and rightly proclaim itself as “the party of civil rights.” All 118 Republicans voted for the 13th Amendment to end slavery, while a mere 19 out of 82 Democrats voted for it, a meager 23%. 100% of Republicans voted for the 14th Amendment to give civil rights to all emancipated slaves, compared to 0% Democrats. 100% of Republicans also voted to pass the 15th Amendment to give blacks the right to vote, compared to 0% Democrats – not a single Democrat voted to give blacks the right to vote. And from 1870-1875, a Republican Congress passed many civil rights laws, only to be stopped when the Democrats took control in 1876, and no more were passed until 1964. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 were passed by Democrat Presidents, even though only 62% of Senate Democrats voted for those two bills, compared to 83% of Republicans. In fact, both of those bills were authored by Eisenhower in ’57 and ‘59, but were initially killed by the Democrats. But the truth remains that if the Democrats hadn’t passed Jim Crow Laws and other repressive legislation to deny Blacks their rights, the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 wouldn’t have been necessary.
Read it all. link to follow.
3w’s dot californiareview dot org/index.php
Warwick, you’re misrepresenting the current state of both parties. The pre-60’s Democrats are not the Democrats of today. Same for the Republicans. The turning point was Barry Goldwater’s revolution, which in part opposed the civil rights act. The “Southern Strategy” is a real strategy and was seen as recently as Bush Sr’s Willie Horton ads. Jesse Helms had his racially-charged ads against affirmative action. Pat Buchanan had his “Amen corner” comments while David Duke just narrowly missed becoming governor of Louisiana. Trent Lott praised Strom Thurmond’s segregationist era politics. The anti-miscegenation Bob Jones University continues to be a popular stop for Republican presidential candidates.
Where is the black lobby in the Republican Party? Even blacks with fairly conservative values tend to vote Democrat. The Republicans realize this, which is why Ken Mehlman has been pitching the repubs to black leaders in order to change the party’s image.
So yes, the Republican party was historically the abolitionist party – however they have not been a party friendly to progressive causes for quite a few decades now. I don’t see the point of digging into the past when it has little to do with the present state of the Republicans (split between Neocons, Southern Strategy Cons and Christian Crusader Cons – all 3 groups being somewhat suspicious of one another and none of which are particularly progressive on social causes)
Michael Steele didn’t run in Maryland pre-60’s. This is modern.
Dubya dubya dubya dot washingtontimes dot com/op-ed/20051030-100352-4066r.htm
Dubya dubya dubya dot washingtontimes.com/national/20051114-015140-6451r.htm
Democrat Maryland Delegate Salina Siler joined the fray, when she said of Steele: “Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community. His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people.” She also called him an “Oreo cookie”. Nice mouth, Ms. Siler.
Democrat Maryland State Senate President Mike Miller Jr. even called him “an Uncle Tom”.
As for Byrd, he is STILL in the senate and STILL being hailed by Democrats.
“Democrat Senator Robert Byrd’s outburst of racist bigoted slurs, more specifically the “n-word,” on national television in March of 2001. Amazingly, this incident of blatant racism on national television drew barely a peep from the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Julian Bond, Mary Frances Berry, or any of the other ambulance chasers who purport themselves to be the leaders of the civil rights movement.”
That’s 2001, not 1961.
“[democrat] Senator Biden proved that he is a good racist democrat today, joining Senator Bob “KKK” Byrd. He said “You cannot enter a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts unless you have an Indian Accent.”
Lots more at:
michellemalkin.com/archives/003823.htm
Billy McKinney: Former Democrat State Representative Billy McKinney of Georgia, who is also the father of former Democrat congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of the same state. During his daughter’s failed 2002 reelection bid, McKinney appeared on television where he blamed his daughter’s difficulties on a Jewish conspiracy. McKinney unleashed a string of anti-semitic sentiments, stating “This is all about the Jews” and spelling out “J-E-W-S.” McKinney lost his own seat in a runoff a few weeks later.
In a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Op/Ed piece, Justice Clarence Thomas was said to be black but ‘with an asterisk’ ..meaning he’s only a pretender and not really black.
I guess some things never change…
there is no global warming just the HOT AIR from AL GORE and the wacky wads from GREENPEACE
Warwick – your rebuttals to Cynapse’s lefty preconceptions were outstanding! He’s been reduced to complaining that Republicans are insufficiently “progressive”. Who knew!?
Progressive is another of the many many English words that have lost their meaning thanks to our left wingers.
IMO Progressives are promoting proven regressive policies.
Those policies that embrace tribes, clans, cults, mobs, communists, socialists, women, children, gays, artists or whatever group of “the people” that best suits the agenda for left wing social political causes, will be embraced and coddled in the popular culture of todays so called Progressives.
Thanks JR!
Wow, a rebuttal is a reduction? Warwick simply didn’t address anything I said about his party, preferring instead to dwell on the Democratic history that everyone knows.
Civil rights were “progressive” in the 60’s, so I’m not out of line using that term. Moreoever McKinney is black and Democrat, and we weren’t discussing antisemitism were we?
And my examples were all completely dodged. And still no one’s explained the 90% black vote for the Democrats. It’s amazing how some people complain about the far left then imitate them when challenged.
And “progressive” means you support progress. The Civil rights movement was progress so if you supported it you were a progressive. Same for Women’s suffrage and other major social gains. It’s absolutely baffling that this term has become associated with the hardline of an ideology that does not by defaul imply progress (was Stalin progressive?)
JR, please look up my “lefty” (love how you get slapped with that label whenever you question anything from the right) preconceptions. Try Wikipedia, Britannica, Google News, anywhere.
And “progressive” means you support progress. The Civil rights movement was progress so if you supported it you were a progressive. Same for Women’s suffrage and other major social gains. It’s absolutely baffling that this term has become associated with the hardline of an ideology that does not by defaul imply progress (was Stalin progressive?)
JR, please look up my “lefty” (love how you get slapped with that label whenever you question anything from the right) preconceptions. Try Wikipedia, Britannica, Google News, anywhere.
Cynapse,
These days anyone who prattles on about “progressivism” is a lefty.
From Wikipedia:
“The Progressive, a left-wing monthly magazine.”
“Today the term refers to movements on the left ranging from liberal to social democrat.”
“…progressivism …..seems to imply more interest in economic issues such as [confiscation and re]distribution of income.” [Otherwise known as ‘social justice‘.]
“The main opponents of progressivism are conservatism, and libertarianism”
As concrete noted above “progressive” is yet another term like “liberal” that’s been hijacked by the left and inverted in meaning.
In light of the current political meaning of the term, that you would expect Republicans to be “progressive” is more than just a little absurd.
I don’t “expect” the Republicans to be progressive. I just find it highly entertaining that this thread (who are surely “conservative” in their minds) are using the voting patterns of the progressive incarnation of Republicans to absolve the current Republicans. That’s incredibly dishonest.
-Pre-Goldwater Republicans were closer to the Democrats of the 80’s than today’s Republicans, largely from the north, and at least half of them were self-described liberals.
-The “Dixiecrats” wanted to preserve Jim Crow laws and won the rural / working-class white vote on a segregationist platform. That WAS the conservative position of the day
-The “Southern Strategy” which I alluded to earlier was based on the desire of Republicans to gain votes in the South. Southern voters, typically democratic voters at the time, were attracted to Barry Goldwater because he opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the premise that it infringed on states’ rights. Goldwater lost his presidential bid, but the Republicans intensified their bid for Southern votes by playing to racial fears. Lee Atwater was in Ronald Reagan’s administration during 1981 when he gave this quote to historian Alexander Lamis:
” You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘N!gger, n!gger, n!gger.’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘n!gger’ – that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me – because obviously sitting around saying, ‘We want to cut this,’ is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ‘N!gger, n!gger.’ “
Now relate this back to what I mentioned earlier about George Bush’s Willie Horton ads and Jesse Helms’ affirmative action ads. The Southern Strategy was a deliberate, calculated campaign to win rural, conservative voters. It is not a fully historic represenatation of the party and members have since backed away from it … but it is dishonest to take use the party’s 1/2 liberal past to declare conservatives were on the right side of civil rights history. That’s just not true. Even Warwick would be called a “dirty hippie liberal” in the 60’s.
Racial Purity Laws in Canada need better definition, Canada should look to South Africa’s former Apartheid government for guidance in these matters.
This becomes more obvious when agencies that conduct elections in Canada assume that to be Native is to be a left-leaning doofus. That’s not necessarily the case, even if that’s how Natives have been treated by liberals.
The left is very good at divide and conquer and the right is just starting to understand the way the left works and see through it.
White against black, rich against poor, men against women, homosexuals against the church, Quebec against the Anglos, Canadians against Americans, it is the left that must underline differences and also the left that creates programs that perpetuate problems becauses without those problems the left has nothing.
What good are the left without OPM? (other peoples money).
For instance, anyone who tries to rent an apartment in Van will soon notice there are very few apartment buildings built since the 1970’s.
Because of the way the landlords are taxed Vancouver is all condos and strata titled.
No one is going to build rentals and that is the way the powers that be like it.
Renters have very few choices but to rent in run down shabby buildings from the 60’s and 70’s and sooner or from individual home and condo owners and the powers that be obviously want it that way or they would change the law.
They can paint landlords as greedy bastards AND sell condos at inflated prices.
No one will build rentals because of the tax code where all capital gains from rentals are fully taxable and not eligible for any tax break if reinvested, i.e. used to build more apartments.
This tax law does not apply to a hotel or any other business , just rentals.
Thank the NDP and the Libs and the Progressives.
If one wants to see what happens when apartment buildings are taxed the same as other business, just go to Bellingham where they have been continually building apartments.
Cynapse,
“Even Warwick would be called a “dirty hippie liberal” in the 60’s.”
I bet they’d have lynched me too. Especially because I’m a social liberal/libertarian who is in favour of gay rights, abortion, the legalization of drugs…
Tyranny and oppression is what you can expect from the left. They are people who feel the right to crush dissent from whatever policy is currently in vogue. Back then it was the KKK.
There are those members of the Dems who have moved to the GOP which you can have back. People like the two Pats (Buchanan and Robertson) who are protectionist, isolationist, racist, big-government twits who do not realize they really aren’t welcome. They are a blight on the GOP with only limited appeal to the broader base. Even most of the “religious right” are not remotely close to the Pats. The Dems still have most of their intolerant, anti-Semitic and racist twits though. The difference is their racism is soft and hidden behind quotas and nanny-state, low expectations.
Undoubtedly George Bush would also qualify for the Dixiecrats wrath given his appointments. Appointments of Blacks not made by the Dems even today.
Also note that in the past, liberal meant Adam Smith, small government, libertarian, “classical” liberal and not left. For more look at the debate (currently annoying me) on the other threads on the subject of common usage.
Atwater’s quote is meaningless. It basically is some guy making up a theory out of nothing. It isn’t an example of anything. He’s just accusing people of a motive he can’t possibly know. It’s as bad as all those people who whine that the US sends “poor people” to go fight wars even though it’s mostly the middle class who join. It’s a base slander – not proof of any point.
No doubt in some cases people hid racism behind other motives like bussing (like the left hides its anti-Semitism behind anti-Zionism) but many of the critics of bussing didn’t object to better opportunities for Blacks. The problem a lot of people had was that they were bussing white kids the other direction. Think about that. You have a poor, crappy, violent inter-city school. Black parents didn’t want to send their kids to it. They demand better. So the state wants to send YOUR kid there in their place? I would object too. That isn’t racism, that’s looking out for your own kid.
The other thing is that a lot of the objections were from the dems, not the GOP.
The tax-cut/racism thing is just asinine and unworthy of comment. Taxes are not race specific. To suggest someone who wants to cut taxes is a racists renders the very word useless.