Today's rain didn't stop a few hundred people from showing up for an outdoor rally at Library Square to oppose the NDP-Liberal-Bloc coalition that could topple Prime Minister Stephen Harper. A number had traveled to the downtown Vancouver rally from outlying areas; the young couple standing next to me were from Abbotsford.
Stockwell Day, a Conservative cabinet minister, was the first to speak from a small stage under a white tent with a maple leaf on the roof. Then a number of MP's and three non-politicians spoke.
I'll post more on the rally later, but for now here are some photos.
"Don't Mess with Success" is the line at the bottom of this cut 'n paste poster.
Stockwell Day was accessible after the rally. People were walking up to the stage to offer a comment or a handshake.
But he soon had to give his attention to reporters.
10 comments:
Great photos, especially that last one.
thanks
Yeah, both stories here, (this and the one below)are great, particularly, at this point, the one below. Great reporting, great story, well told. Dynamite work.
yep, that last photo is one of those that really really tell a story==it's just beautiful, in many ways. Congrats!
Stock. a ha ha....did he ride up on a jet ski?
or wait, how bout one of those hill billy snow machines a la Palin and co.
that last pic is a deer in the headlighter for sure.
"does not compute"....."d'UH bya is my hero"
We have to stop using the false dichotomy of "Left and Right" in our political analyses. It doesn't make sense. Yes, it's established usage, but it still doesn't make sense, and it's not just meaningless, it's so wrong as to be harmful.
The Conservatives aren't "conservative" in any meaningful sense, nor are the Liberals "liberal," nor the NDP "progressive."
The essential division is between collectivists and individualists. The Conservatives are supported generally by individualists rather than by corporations, which is to say conglomerate business entities and collectivist power blocks such as unions.
If one is interested in individuals, one is likely to support the Conservatives in politics. If one is a collectivist, then one is likely to support the Liberals or the NDP or the Greens. It comes to how one sees others, not so much oneself. If one sees others as masses to be manipulated because they are "stupid," as anon. above seems to with his idiot reference to Geo. W. Bush, then one demands elitist control of the "masses." If one has some respect for individuals as thinking and responsible individuals, one is more likely to support the Conservatives.
That has nothing to do with "Left and Right."
your "individualist" vs "collectivist" argument makes no sense.
Either does supporting the Conservatives unelss all you care about is big business and Oil Companies in Alberta.
Wake up! Med change may be necessary!
You want to be the 51'st state?
Your complaint is incoherent. If you wish to present an argument, you start with a thesis of some sort, and then you provide steps that lead to a conclusion. All you've don is say I'm wrong. You provide nothing more than ranting. Back up and try again.
Did I mention that bloggers like you are putting the MSM out of business? You might like to consider the news from one of the remaining sources still out there, the Wall Street Journal, not such a Leftist p.c. rag as so many others:
"[Chicago] Tribune Co. is preparing for a possible filing for bankruptcy-court protection as soon as this week, according to people familiar with the matter, in a sign of worsening trouble for the newspaper industry.
In recent days, as Chicago-based Tribune continued talks with lenders to restructure its debt, the newspaper-and-television concern hired investment bank Lazard Ltd. as its financial adviser and law firm Sidley Austin to advise the company on a possible trip through Chapter 11 bankruptcy, people familiar with the matter say.
A Tribune spokesman said the company doesn't comment on rumors or speculation. Tribune owns eight major daily newspapers, ..."
Way to go, R.S.
R.S., I wonder just how much damage your reporting is doing. You an d other bloggers seem to be destroying the MSM.
"The New York Times Company plans to borrow up to $225 million against its mid-Manhattan headquarters building, to ease a potential cash flow squeeze as the company grapples with tighter credit and shrinking profits."
If people are faced with paying $600.00 per year to read Leftard rubbish, and if you provide solid journalism for donations, then it looks like the NYT and others are going to continue going broke.
Oh yeah, it is you. The New Republic has this, and it's because of you:
"America's newspaper industry has been imploding in the last few years, a development that predates the Wall Street collapse but has been hugely accelerated by the economic meltdown, forcing thousands of journalists onto the street. Hundreds more have now joined them from retrenching magazines and faltering websites, bringing the year-to-date total to 14,683 according to the tracking website Paper Cuts. Hundreds more have now joined them from retrenching magazines and faltering websites. Every day the journalism clearinghouse Romenesko links to stories of layoffs and downsizing--Gannett has been cutting 2,000 jobs across the chain, and Newsday has just announced another five percent in the last week alone...."
Gee, I can pay $600.00 per year for the New York Times to lie to me or I can read blogs for nearly nothing. Touch call, huh.
Post a Comment