[Negotiator]

In Canada, foremost amongst our founding fathers is Sir John A. Macdonald, a Conservative who built an electoral coalition called the "Liberal-Conservative Party". He invisioned a party that attracted what he called "progressive conservatives", people who believed in tradition, law and order, and the best conservative traits, but did not obstruct change merely for the sake of rejecting change, but neither promoted change for the sake of change.

This is typical conservative bullshit in my ears.

It says the guy is free of ideology. This is the worst kind of fanatic there is.

Never trust anyone who claims to be free of ideology. Its always a lie, by definition. Everyone has some idea about how the world works. Otherwise you would drown in information with no idea how its linked together. So you HAVE to have some idea how to interpret things. Therefore, everyone has an ideology.

Nobody is a more dangerous fanatic than the one who claims to be objective. It means they have no idea what their ideology really is, and they will be able to refute even the most sensible requests as "ideological".

Yes, my country does have a Monarch (Queen Elizabeth II), yet funnily enough she has less power than your American President.

Much much less power, for all I know. The UK is a democracy, mostly. The monarch is mostly only for show. The only real issue is that North Ireland cant vote the parlament, which is an unbelievable violation of human rights in a modern industrialized country.

Canada for instance, was founded on the principles of "Peace, Order, and Good Government", our equivalent of your "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

I believe anything but "liberte, egalite, fraternite" or, in modern words and english, "liberty, democracy and solidarity", is a less than ideal choice for a motto. These are the three things that human rights ask for - democracy, and the liberty and social security needed to defend and enjoy it.

All these other versions - "peace, order, and good government", "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" or the german "mutual consent(*), law and liberty" dont get any close to the french original, as they dont have much of a deeper meaning.

(*) There seems to be not even a good translation for the german "Einigkeit". The english language doesnt know a word for a consensus thats just assumed, kind of like liberty etc is.

[Potemkin]

The english language doesnt know a word for a consensus thats just assumed, kind of like liberty etc is.

Communality?

[William_H_Dougherty]

This is typical conservative bullshit in my ears.

It says the guy is free of ideology. This is the worst kind of fanatic there is.

A belief in moderation, compromise, and consensus is an ideology unto itself. To link that with fanaticism is bizarre.

MacDonald is also not a conservative in the modern sense of the word, so your partisan attack ("conservative bullshit") is near meaningless.

Never trust anyone who claims to be free of ideology. Its always a lie, by definition. Everyone has some idea about how the world works. Otherwise you would drown in information with no idea how its linked together. So you HAVE to have some idea how to interpret things. Therefore, everyone has an ideology.

Well, MacDonald was a machiavellian character, that is for sure. However, his policy goals were all achieved:

#1. A democracy from sea-to-sea.
#2. A strong association with the British Empire.
#3. Continued Independence from the United States.

I think 99% of Canadians are quite happy with the above, and they realize that achieving them was not too easy. Sometimes the practical person can achieve what the idealistic cannot.

Nobody is a more dangerous fanatic than the one who claims to be objective. It means they have no idea what their ideology really is, and they will be able to refute even the most sensible requests as "ideological".

That strikes me as nonsensical. Please explain further.

Much much less power, for all I know. The UK is a democracy, mostly. The monarch is mostly only for show. The only real issue is that North Ireland cant vote the parlament, which is an unbelievable violation of human rights in a modern industrialized country.

The Queen only has power during an emergency. Her position is a failsafe.

I believe anything but "liberte, egalite, fraternite" or, in modern words and english, "liberty, democracy and solidarity", is a less than ideal choice for a motto. These are the three things that human rights ask for - democracy, and the liberty and social security needed to defend and enjoy it.

Thats funny, there is a longer waiting list to get into Canada than France, the only people who riot on the streets are foreign agitators (many of them French) at G8 and G20 meetings, and we have a higher standard and level of Human Development than France.

So if "human rights ask for" "liberte, egalite, fraternite", why does "Peace, Order, and Good Government" deliver more said human rights?

All this talk of deeper meaning is useless. You see lack of ideology as dangerous, I see too much ideology as dangerous. Ideologues are rarely practical people, and sometimes that is what will deliver the best results.

Peace, Order, and Good Government. Clear, concise, and effective.

- WHD

[hannigaholic]

The only real issue is that North Ireland cant vote the parlament, which is an unbelievable violation of human rights in a modern industrialized country.

What is this? Since when can N.Ireland not 'vote the parliament'? They elect MPs there just like everywhere else, but they choose to vote for terrorists instead of second home expense cheats.