# How Will You Vote



## UberCree (30 Nov 2005)

As of today November 30, 2005, how will you vote.


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 Nov 2005)

Rhinoceros, or Flying Yogis, tough call right now, still early


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Nov 2005)

For whichever Party promises me the same pension the MPs get.


----------



## Wayne Buss (30 Nov 2005)

[The Liberals cannot be trusted, the abuse of power is absolute. 

Absolute power corrupts absolutely and The Liberals must be held accountable 

My only hope is that the Ontarians will come to realize the power they have been supporting. 

Without the support of the Ontario voters the liberals will not hold power. 

So whom do we hold responsible for this corrupt government.. ?


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Nov 2005)

Wayne Buss said:
			
		

> [The Liberals cannot be trusted, the abuse of power is absolute.
> 
> Absolute power corrupts absolutely and The Liberals must be held accountable
> 
> ...



My good man, there have been so many Liberal bashing threads in this forum that your rhetoric doesn't even raise an eyebrow anymore.  Rather then implying that voting Liberal is voting for the great Satan, and that (of course) it's all Ontario's fault, you might do better by presenting rational arguments for a party rather than against one (assuming that the above could be called an argument).  After all, the problem all the other parties have (besides their regional focus) is that none of them can capture enough of the undecided or split "anti current governemnt" votes to make a difference.

And take care when targetting this crowd, for the Regular Force personnel for the most part all vote in the ridings they were recruited from. So even the full time service members who live in Ontario may not actually vote there.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Nov 2005)

Where is the Marxist Leninist Party? The Marijuana party? The Green Party? The Monster Raving Looney Party? (oh, wrong election).

The Liberals offer the Open Agenda of theft, while the Conservatives have the Hidden Agendatm of (insert bogeyman here). What do the Non Democratic party offer us?


----------



## vangemeren (30 Nov 2005)

Cheaper post-secondary education for me of course.  :blotto:

I'm going to wait the entire campaign and decide at the polling station.


----------



## AoD71 (30 Nov 2005)

Holy Crap! I read the above post about the Marxist-Leninist party and I looked up their site. I NEVER heard of a communist party in Canada! Its so insane that there are all these parties I didn't even have a clue existed. Any other parties that are hidden somewhere in the background?


----------



## SoF (30 Nov 2005)

Doesn't really matter who you vote for; it's all the same. If the Liberals don't get re-elected it's like flushing the toilet; a new turd will just drop in soon as the other one leaves. I just want to wait till the parties announce their new agendas. I'd vote for which ever party that the DND will benefit from the most.


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Nov 2005)

AoD71 said:
			
		

> Holy Crap! I read the above post about the Marxist-Leninist party and I looked up their site. I NEVER heard of a communist party in Canada! Its so insane that there are all these parties I didn't even have a clue existed. Any other parties that are hidden somewhere in the background?



Registered Political Parties and Parties Eligible for Registration
http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=pol&document=index&dir=par&lang=e&textonly=false

Google is your friend.


----------



## AoD71 (30 Nov 2005)

SoF said:
			
		

> I just want to wait till the parties announce their new agendas.



Anyone have any idea as to when this is probably going to happen? This is going to be my first election and I want to vote!   Call me weird because I know it won't make a difference, but I never really was interested in politics. I want to know things like why the Liberals have been in power for so long even though they have the reputation of a street hooker. And why haven't I even heard of parties like the CPC(M-L) before. I want to make an education decision as to where I stand!


----------



## SoF (30 Nov 2005)

Yeap I checked out that site earlier today; LOL the "Marijuana Party", don't they think we have bigger concerns than de-criminalzing pot???


----------



## vangemeren (30 Nov 2005)

AoD71 said:
			
		

> Anyone have any idea as to when this is probably going to happen? This is going to be my first election and I want to vote!   Call me weird because I know it won't make a difference, but I never really was interested in politics. I want to know things like why the Liberals have been in power for so long even though they have the reputation of a street hooker. And why haven't I even heard of parties like the CPC(M-L) before. I want to make an education decision as to where I stand!



This should help you
http://www.elections.ca/content_youth.asp?section=yth&document=index&lang=e&textonly=false

This will be my second federal election.

As a side note I was lookig at the party logos and I found the Western Block Party amusing.
http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=pol&document=parties&dir=par&lang=e&textonly=false


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (30 Nov 2005)

SoF said:
			
		

> If the Liberals don't get re-elected it's like flushing the toilet; a new turd will just drop in soon as the other one leaves.



 :rofl: Best analogy ever.


----------



## KevinB (30 Nov 2005)

Christian Heritage Party    ;D


----------



## TCBF (30 Nov 2005)

How will I vote? ...By secret ballot.

 ;D

The LAST time I voted in a winter federal election, was in the old theatre in Camp Wainwright.  We went inside, walked up to the stage, grounded our FN C1s and FN C2s, voted, picked up our weapons and got back on the deuce-and-a-half.

Tom


----------



## PViddy (30 Nov 2005)

I will vote for Mike Holmes of the popular tv reno show "Holmes on Homes"   

cheers

PV

actually i am a bit undecided at this point.  Leaning conservative.


----------



## larry Strong (30 Nov 2005)

Well if you have read any of my post's, you know who I voted for. ;D


----------



## a_majoor (1 Dec 2005)

"W" isn't running for office here.....


----------



## Pikache (1 Dec 2005)

Still early to make a decision. Right now leaning Liberals because Harper hasn't shown much of a reason why I should vote for him.


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Dec 2005)

Rick Mercer!  What riding was he in again?  ;D


----------



## RangerRay (1 Dec 2005)

CONSERVATIVE!!! ;D


----------



## Joe Blow (1 Dec 2005)

> Still early to make a decision. Right now leaning Liberals because Harper hasn't shown much of a reason why I should vote for him.



http://www.conservative.ca/EN/key_issues/

...Oh  ..and they are the one party with a chance of forming a government that isn't demonstrably corrupt.

My $0.02

(..and Gomery's)


----------



## kcdist (1 Dec 2005)

There is only one issue here.

All parties, I believe, are striving for, more or less, the same objectives: 

They all are in favour of a healthy, well-educated population.

They are all in favour of helping the less fortunate.

They all agree that the environment should be protected for ourselves and our children.

They all believe that immigration is generally a positive and will continue. 

They all believe that crime is bad and should be discouraged.

They are all in favour of a strong economy that can pay for social programs.

They all agree that, internationally, Canada should contribute to the betterment of the world.

What differs, of course, is the methods of achieving these objectives. Some party's ideas will be more successful than others.

I submit, therefore, that there is only one major pressing issue in this campaign. It is one of trust, integrity and principles. I will not rehash the findings of Gomrey, but any party, regardless of political stripe, _*MUST*_ be punished if found to be breaching the public trust. A short list from recent Canadian history include the NDP in BC for 'Bingogate', the Socreds in BC for VanderZalm's dealings with personal business, and the Progressive Conservative party in Saskatchewan for expense account fraud.

To support a party guilty of criminal activity is to condone it. I care not how sorry, contrite and willing to change they are......they were caught, and they must be punished. Remember that many of those who were involved were likely never brought to task, and are still working within the great Liberal machine. 

On principle alone, I could never support the current Liberal party. They have breached the public trust, and despite a one million dollar payback, still have over fourty million unaccounted for. Perhaps, once they have sat in the back benches for a term or two, I may revisit this, depending on whether or not they have evicted the cancer that currently inflicts their party.   


Despite having voted Liberal in the past (1988 - I didn't like the Conservate policy on nuclear subs) I shall be voting Conservative this time.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (1 Dec 2005)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> For whichever Party promises me the same pension the MPs get.



Hell, I'd be happy if I could expense a single $220 lunch on the taxpayers ticket!  

Seriously, you know there's a disconnect when those asshats have no idea how wrong and inappropriate that is....




Matthew.


----------



## Whiskey_Dan (1 Dec 2005)

My friend and I were talking about voting Conservative just a few days ago but he metioned he didn't want to 
vote for Germant Grewal (yes we live in Newton-North Delta riding), and turns out the day after, he pulled his
candidacy to give the Conservatives a better chance of winning the max number of seats (my riding is traditionally
conservative). Grewal was a very smart man, still is, of course, he just didn't have the english skills to portray his
message clearly.


----------



## winchable (1 Dec 2005)

Waiting to see if there are any independents in my area, looking for a social libertarian fiscal conservative type whos not liberal.
Yeah I'm wishing,

I'll probably wait a while before I decide for sure but I lean towards the conservatives and can't see myself voting liberal right now, but the election isn't until January 23rd so who knows.


----------



## Hunter (1 Dec 2005)

kcdist said:
			
		

> To support a party guilty of criminal activity is to condone it. I care not how sorry, contrite and willing to change they are......they were caught, and they must be punished. Remember that many of those who were involved were likely never brought to task, and are still working within the great Liberal machine.



My thoughts exactly!!


----------



## FredDaHead (1 Dec 2005)

I'd vote Conservative, but, being that my currently registered address is in Quebec, that'd be throwing my vote away.

Coincidentally, I'm voting in Gilles Duceppe's riding, so guess who I'm voting for?


----------



## Infanteer (1 Dec 2005)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> I'd vote Conservative, but, being that my currently registered address is in Quebec, that'd be throwing my vote away.



You most certainly wouldn't be throwing your vote away - each vote tallied for the Bloq is basically saying that you don't wish to participate National politics and that you support an overall agenda of tearing Canada apart.


----------



## FredDaHead (1 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> You most certainly wouldn't be throwing your vote away - each vote tallied for the Bloq is basically saying that you don't wish to participate National politics and that you support an overall agenda of tearing Canada apart.



Which is still better than supporting thieves and traitors...

I think the Communist party probably gets more votes than the Conservatives in Quebec. So, yes, it is a wasted vote to vote Conservative in Quebec. Would you rather have me vote for the Liberals? I'd be participating in National politics, after all...


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (1 Dec 2005)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> I'd vote Conservative, but, being that my currently registered address is in Quebec, that'd be throwing my vote away.
> 
> Coincidentally, I'm voting in Gilles Duceppe's riding, so guess who I'm voting for?



I'd still vote Conservative.  The party needs to build a base in Quebec and it may take time, but every vote builds momentum.

That's just me.


Matthew.


----------



## Hunter (1 Dec 2005)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> I'd vote Conservative, but, being that my currently registered address is in Quebec, that'd be throwing my vote away.
> 
> Coincidentally, I'm voting in Gilles Duceppe's riding, so guess who I'm voting for?



I believe that there is no such thing as a wasted vote.   The Liberals stole the money because they thought that they would get away with it.   Getting out to vote, and voting for someone other than the Liberals sends a message that what they have done is not acceptable.   

As for Gilles Duceppe, while I object to his politics, I think he is probably the most effective of all the party leaders in the house.


----------



## iamcanuck (1 Dec 2005)

Here's a good site with a brief summary of each party's platform for different issues. The information is from the last election, but will be updated when platforms are released. Link.

As well, under current election laws, every vote for a party counts towards the amount of public funding that party receives for the next election. 





> Each party's quarterly allowance will be 37.5 cents times the total number of valid votes that party received in the previous general election (which equates to $1.50 per vote, when calculated over a full year).


 So even if you vote Conservative and they don't win the riding, it will increase their amount of funding for the next election. Note that this is for current election law, and different parties have suggested altering it in different ways.

Matt


----------



## Infanteer (1 Dec 2005)

So don't waste your vote - it'll cost you a buck-fifty....


----------



## Thirstyson (1 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> So don't waste your vote - it'll cost you a buck-fifty....



Ha! Good one.


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 Dec 2005)

Here's how I'll make my decision:
 - Glue a cake turntable thingamee to the back of a dart board
 - Turn it over and glue Lib, PC, and NDP alternately over the slots.
 - Give it a good spin, back up 15 feet, and fire off three darts, rapid fire.
 - Repeat 3 times
 - Highest number of sticks gets my vote.

Not very scientific, I know, but as good a method as any to chose which liar candidate gets my vote.


----------



## Wils21 (1 Dec 2005)

Im voting Conservative.  When someone breaks the law you punish them.  When someone I know steals from me they are no longer my friend.  When someone I trust lies to me I am no longer able to believe that they have my best interest at heart.   I will not reward piss poor behaviour.


----------



## FredDaHead (1 Dec 2005)

Wils21 said:
			
		

> Im voting Conservative.   When someone breaks the law you punish them.   When someone I know steals from me they are no longer my friend.   When someone I trust lies to me I am no longer able to believe that they have my best interest at heart.     I will not reward piss poor behaviour.



Amen, brother.

It's only too sad the majority of Canadians don't seem to have this much common sense...


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Dec 2005)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> It's only too sad the majority of Canadians don't seem to have this much common sense...



Ah yes, perhaps because they remember how well loved the Conservatives were the last time they graciously handed off the government to the Liberals. Perhaps the average voter is just confused and frustrated because there is no clear dominance by any party based on a history of perceived ethical leadership.

But maybe you wouldn't remember that.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Dec 2005)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> It's only too sad the majority of Canadians don't seem to have this much common sense...



Of course, they're saying the same thing about you.


----------



## AoD71 (1 Dec 2005)

So which party do you guys think will benefit the CF most?  ???


----------



## FredDaHead (1 Dec 2005)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Ah yes, perhaps because they remember how well loved the Conservatives were the last time they graciously handed off the government to the Liberals. Perhaps the average voter is just confused and frustrated because there is no clear dominance by any party based on a history of perceived ethical leadership.
> 
> But maybe you wouldn't remember that.



Let's just throw all our votes to the NDP.. or the Communist party. Heck, I'd vote for the Die Men Die party if it meant a change for the better.

Seriously though, of course there's no ethically dominant party, they're politicians.

I still stick to my ideas, though: it's better to go with a party that might change things for the better, than one who we know won't change anything. Whether that's the Conservatives, the NDP, or whoever else, that's above my paygrade.


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Dec 2005)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> Let's just throw all our votes to the NDP.. or the Communist party. Heck, I'd vote for the Die Men Die party if it meant a change for the better.



That's the problem - "thrown" votes don't win elections, they get spread too thin. Organized votes win elections, even if it's only with a minority government.

Now ask yourself this: if none of the other parties manages to organize sufficient votes; either through their campaign and/or by grass-roots support, and the Liberals do form another minority government, do you think the Canadian voter will support another non-confidence vote in the near term? (And please don't hide behind generalized insults about their intelligence, because it only makes me doubt yours.)

If you're so dead set against the Liberals, identify the clear alternative and build a case that will actually convince enough people to make a difference. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke and posting empty rhetoric.


----------



## KevinB (1 Dec 2005)

Keep reminding yourself the CPC is not the OLD PC party.

  The CPC is both the Reform and the PC's  -- as such in corruption will benifit those of us out west  ;D


----------



## couchcommander (2 Dec 2005)

Indeed, I could use some juicy sponsorship money. I'm pretty sure separatism in alberta is building... we need another national unity program, this time for the west. 

Screw my Liberal membership, I'm voting conservative!

(for the record, no, I'm voting Liberal, IMO anyone who thinks they are getting a better deal from the Conservatives will be sorely dissapointed. Plus, from my perspective I don't really see anything that could be called a "platform").


----------



## Joe Blow (2 Dec 2005)

> from my perspective I don't really see anything that could be called a "platform"



Why have they Conservatives removed the policy document from the website? (The published results form the big confab in Montreal in March.. I think it was March..)  Maybe the web development dept inadvertently buried the link..  Hmph. 

Anyway, I saved a copy.  If anyone can tell me how to post it (pdf doc.) I'll toss it up there...

For a jist of the platform just peruse the website.. and did you catch the GST announcement today?  Love it or hate it it is definitely a substantive policy announcement.  ...a plank in a platform.


----------



## Spr.Earl (2 Dec 2005)

Who cares they are only there for the own party,not their constituents.
Shoot the lot of them and may be we will get a Government by the people for the people.


----------



## couchcommander (2 Dec 2005)

Re: the GST

sure, one aspect of a platform, certainly doesn't tell me what a conservative government would do once in power.

oh, and re: the gst

""From an economic point of view, it wouldn't be my first choice," Bill Robson, senior vice-president of the CD Howe Institute...Jason Clemens, an economist with the Fraser Institute, said he also opposes reducing the GST. 


Jim Davies, who teaches economics at the University of Western Ontario in London, also said he would prefer income tax cuts."

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/01/gst-reac051201.html


----------



## Joe Blow (2 Dec 2005)

re the GST:

Yeah.. sure from a productivity standpoint reducing income taxes (edit: ..and eliminating the capital gains tax..and reducing coporate taxes) would be a better move.  From a retail standpoint reducing the GST will certainly not hurt.  Additionally, the Tories hint that there is more to come on the tax cut front...   



> Re: the GST
> 
> sure, one aspect of a platform, certainly doesn't tell me what a conservative government would do once in power.



Yes it does ..and a platform is made of many planks.  This is one.  We're discussing part of the Conservative platform right now.


----------



## couchcommander (2 Dec 2005)

Right, go compare the liberal http://www.liberal.ca/issues_e.aspx issues section with the conservative http://www.conservative.ca/EN/key_issues/ key issue. 

Notice how there are actually dollars, legislation, explanations, etc, in the liberal one, whereas all the Conservatives can manage is single sentance blurbs?

An excerpt... Conservatives say: "New or rebuilt municipal roads, bridges and other infrastructure."

Liberals say "The Liberal government remains firmly committed to a New Deal for Canada's cities and communities. We are working hard to give Canada's municipalities a strong voice and the tools to succeed and bridge the gap between municipal resources and municipalities' growing responsibilities.

A key part of this strategy is our commitment to share with municipalities a portion of the revenue from the federal excise tax on gasoline.

We originally committed to transfer a total of $5 billion over five years, beginning with a penny per litre, or $400 million this year. But in Budget 2005, we went even further, starting with $600 million and rising as promised to 5 cents per litre, or $2 billion annually, in 2009-10.

Over 90% of the Canadian population is now covered by such an agreement.

Gas tax agreements have already been signed with the Northwest Territories, Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nunavut, Yukon, Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

This funding will provide valuable support to municipalities across the country, helping them to establish local environmentally sustainable infrastructure and improve their competitiveness and quality of life."


Not only are the Liberals actually saying "look, this is what we'll do, these are the dollars and cents, these are the agreements we will sign", they are saying "well actually we've already brought in a lot of this in our last budget, and we've already signed a lot of agreements, we just need to be able to continue to carry it through".....while all the conservatives got is "oh yea, we like cities...... the Liberals eat babies....."

In relation to things that would resonate with people here...

How would they actually change defence spending? What are the actual dollars they would put in? Would they continue to support these recent unbugeted capital expenditures, or, following in line with their criticsms they've been throwing about, go through a lengthy procurement process? How would they plan to use the Armed Forces in regardes to their foreign policy? Wait a minute, what is their foreign policy? How do they view relations with China? Do they support the building of a "strategic partnership" with China? How would they actually deal with recent aggravations in US-Canadian relations? They claim to want better relations, but everytime the camera is on them they are saying we "aren't doing enough" in regards to softwood? What would "enough" constitute? Would they bring in economic sanctions? etc. etc. etc. etc. 

In short, they don't have a platform.


----------



## Joe Blow (2 Dec 2005)

Well.. they do have a platform.  Saying they don't doesn't make it otherwise.  ...and the Liberals are bad.. "yea" (..as you say)  They stole tax money to fund their campaigns.  They used the power of government to subvert the electoral process.  That's pretty %$#&ing bad in my book.

Without checking your links (it's very late where I am) I feel comfortable accepting your quotes as presented.  I concede that the Liberals ..at this point ..seem to have a better articulated plan for funding of cities (ie. apportioning revenue from the federal gas tax) than the Tories do. Although this doesn't amount to much more than saying "hay we'll cut you a slice of this federal tax" ..and then doing the math on it.

Truth told, I'll give both parties a failing grade on this one.  Cities are creatures of the provinces.  Just cut federal taxes.

edit: you edited in the "eat babies" thing ..I could have come up with a witty counter quip for that one..  you also edited in the defence and foreign policy and softwood stuff..  

It's a little late for this where I am ..I need to sign off.  Suffice it to say for now that it will be a long campaign  ..and if anyone can tell me how to post the Conservative Party Policy Document (pdf) I'll stick it up there.


----------



## xFusilier (2 Dec 2005)

Joe Blow said:
			
		

> They used the power of government to subvert the electoral process.  .



That's a pretty big accusation there Tex, you want to maybe back that up with some facts.  'Cause I sure don't recall hearing about a Canadian verion of C.R.E.E.P.


----------



## Spr.Earl (2 Dec 2005)

What the Rhino Party not running?
I still like their Unity policy,tear down the Rockies.


----------



## couchcommander (2 Dec 2005)

Joe Blow said:
			
		

> edit: you edited in the "eat babies" thing ..I could have come up with a witty counter quip for that one..   you also edited in the defence and foreign policy and softwood stuff..
> 
> It's a little late for this where I am ..I need to sign off.   Suffice it to say for now that it will be a long campaign   ..and if anyone can tell me how to post the Conservative Party Policy Document (pdf) I'll stick it up there.



Yea I'm an edit slut. I was one of those kids in school that would get insulted, and only come up with the really stinging response a little while later (damn short bus, they dont teach you anything you really need to know). Here, you can just edit it in and seem witty from the start!


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Dec 2005)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> What the Rhino Party not running?
> I still like their Unity policy,tear down the Rockies.



They didn't want to tear them down, they wanted to move them between Ontario and Quebec.  I'd love a slice of THAT government contract...


----------



## FredDaHead (2 Dec 2005)

quote author=KevinB link=topic=36968/post-303183#msg303183 date=1133491537]
Keep reminding yourself the CPC is not the OLD PC party.

  The CPC is both the Reform and the PC's  -- as such in corruption will benifit those of us out west  ;D
[/quote]

Good point.. at least the Liberal corruption benefited Quebec. That's it, I'm voting Liberal!

Well, ok, I won't. But think of the benefits!





			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> That's the problem - "thrown" votes don't win elections, they get spread too thin. Organized votes win elections, even if it's only with a minority government.



I meant that in jest. I wouldn't actually want to throw my vote away. I agree with you there... wow.



> Now ask yourself this: if none of the other parties manages to organize sufficient votes; either through their campaign and/or by grass-roots support, and the Liberals do form another minority government, do you think the Canadian voter will support another non-confidence vote in the near term? (And please don't hide behind generalized insults about their intelligence, because it only makes me doubt yours.)



No, and that's the problem. I think a lot of people would agree the Liberals, as they stand right now, are not what's best for Canada. (I'm not saying the Conservatives are right, though.) If we elect another Liberal government, it will not only keep the opposition from getting another non-confidence vote, it will also reinforce the culture of entitlement the Liberals have, which is a lot worse.

As for canadian voters... well, I don't really know what they're thinking, in the ROC. In Quebec, most of us (at least the Quebecois) don't want the Liberals in, because most of the corruption happened there and we've seen how bad it went. I get the feeling the rest of Canada thinks it's Quebec's fault, or something like that, and not the Liberals. Just a problem of perspective, I guess. (Again, not saying Quebec's perspective is better.)



> If you're so dead set against the Liberals, identify the clear alternative and build a case that will actually convince enough people to make a difference. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke and posting empty rhetoric.



You know what? I don't have a clear alternative. The NDP are way too far in the left field, the Bloc are a Quebec-only party, the Conservatives scare people and some of their social ideas are not exactly good...

That's the problem in Canada. People don't want to go to the Liberals, but they're the only clear choice. Most other parties are defined as being non-Liberal (just as we're defined as being non-American, I guess) so what do you expect?

So, yes, maybe, I'm "posting empty rhetoric," but I'd rather post empty rhetoric that just might make one person change their mind, than not say anything and watch the Liberals steal and mismanage for four more years.


----------



## redleafjumper (2 Dec 2005)

Some of you might find this CBC quiz helpful in determining who you agree with on the various issues.  

http://www.votebyissue.org/cbc/

It worked for me!


----------



## Michael OLeary (2 Dec 2005)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> So, yes, maybe, I'm "posting empty rhetoric," but I'd rather post empty rhetoric that just might make one person change their mind, than not say anything and watch the Liberals steal and mismanage for four more years.



Ah, the quintessential Canadian political dilemma ... the devil you know, or the devil you don't. And do you offer them a majority with no controls, or accept a minority in hope that it will regulate their enthusiasm?


----------



## winchable (2 Dec 2005)

After much thought I've decided I'm going to run in the next election.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (2 Dec 2005)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> Some of you might find this CBC quiz helpful in determining who you agree with on the various issues.
> 
> http://www.votebyissue.org/cbc/
> 
> It worked for me!



I knew I agreed with the Conservative platform.  My results were "agree with Harper on 11 issues, Martin of four issues, and Layton on three issues."

I never knew I would agree with Layton on anything..........or Martin for that matter!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Dec 2005)

I guess its time for me to bring out my vintage copy of the 1967 album by three guys called the "Brothers in Law". Good songs such as "Secords Walking Blues", Daisy my Dukabor Doll and of course their tour de force, "Vote for Me"....

_We're Canadian politicians
in extremely good positions
and we'll tell you our ambitions 
so that you can make a note....

For we're very well respected
and stridently connected
and we know we'll be elected
when you all get out and vote......_

and of course they then go off on a little diatribe on each party. My favourite is,

_Oh, the outlook will be sunny
in this land of milk and honey
when we print up lots of money
thats the Social Credit plan...

But in case it starts inflation
and it might effect the nation
well we'll print another billion
just as quickly as we can......._

 EDIT: Whoops guess I can't, ...its packed....oh well I'll sing to myself.....


----------



## FredDaHead (2 Dec 2005)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> Some of you might find this CBC quiz helpful in determining who you agree with on the various issues.
> 
> http://www.votebyissue.org/cbc/
> 
> It worked for me!



Doesn't work for me at all. Now instead of having to choose between 4 parties, I get to choose between 3. (Well, if the quiz affected my decision, anyways) Somehow I managed to agree with the Grits, the Tories and the NDP on 9 issues... Never knew I'd agree as much with the left as with the right. Isn't that a bit contradictory though?

Meh, I'll use the political compass and vote for whoever's closest to me.


----------



## Popurhedoff (2 Dec 2005)

Conservative of course... there are many arguments about which party to vote for... But is comes down to this:

Would you prefer a Conservative pat on the arse? or take it Liberaly up the ***?   Here are a few items that have helped me come to my decision:

*12 years of Liberal boondoggles*

By Sun Staff

*1993: CHOPPERS*
Upon taking power in 1993, the Liberals killed a contract to replace the aging Sea King military helicopters, resulting in at least $500 million in cancellation penalties. The 40-year-old, accident-prone choppers are still flying.

*1995: GUN REGISTRY*
(1995-2005) Originally forecast to cost $2 million in 1995, the auditor general predicted in 2003 that actual costs would escalate to $1 billion by 2004-05. Other independent calculations have suggested the costs have actually ballooned to $2 billion.

*1997: PEARSON*Liberals paid $60 million ËÅ“ $45 million in direct out-of-pocket expenses plus $15 million for lawyers ËÅ“ to Pearson Airport Consortium in 1997 as compensation for cancelling the privatization of Terminals 1 and 2.

*2000: FUEL REBATE*
A botched $1.4-billion heating fuel rebate program doled out cash to the wrong Canadians. Then-finance minister, Paul Martin, announced the gift just before the 2000 federal election, but the auditor general later discovered that as little as 18% made its way to low-income Canadians. Some rebates went to dead people, prisoners and students who were living at home and didn't pay heating bills.

*2000: HRDC*
Calling accounting problems â Å¾widespread and serious,"° the auditor general revealed in 2000 that $1 billion was mismanaged in job-creation grants handled by Human Resources Development Canada, under minister Jane Stewart. A recreation of the paper trail later found only a few million was improperly disbursed.

*2002: CHALLENGER JETS*
The Liberal government spent $101 million on luxury Challenger jets deemed unnecessary by officials at the Department of National Defence. An auditor general's report said the purchase, rushed through on the last day of the fiscal year in 2002, broke purchasing rules.

*2003: RADWANSKI*
Inadequate oversight and spending controls allowed former privacy commissioner George Radwanski to rack up thousands of tax dollars in lavish lunches and luxury travel. Last year, the auditor general also found that Radwanski and executive staff were improperly cashing out vacation, overbilling for expenses and creating a hostile work environment.

*2004: OUELLET*
Ex-Chretien cabinet minister Andre Ouellet piled up a $2-million expense tab during his reign at Canada Post. He resigned after a damning audit criticized his hospitality expenses and how contracts were awarded under the sponsorship program, but claimed he was working on the â Å¾honour system."°

*2005: DINGWALL*
David Dingwall, another Chretien crony who landed a plum post as head of the Royal Canadian Mint, resigned his $277,000-a-year job after it was revealed he and his aides ran up more than $740,000 in expenses the previous year. Adding insult to injury, taxpayers are also on the hook for a severance package even though he voluntarily quit.

*2005: ADSCAM*
The auditor general revealed that up to $100 million of the $250-million sponsorship program went to Liberal-friendly advertising firms for little or no work in 2004. After a public inquiry, Justice John Gomeryâ Å¡s report exonerated Prime Minister Paul Martin but blamed Chretienâ Å¡s inner circle for an elaborate kickback scheme that saw the Liberal Party receive as much as $769,497 in backdoor donations. The program was established to boost the national profile in Quebec after the 1995 referendum on sovereignty.


*Top 64 Reasons not to vote liberal:*

1. Cancelling the Sea King replacement costing us 600 million only to buy similar helicopters in 2004
2. Sponsorship scandal
3. Gun Registry
4. HRDC boondoggle
5. Problems with Transition Job Funds program
6. Tainted blood
7. Radwanski Spending Affair
8. Pearson Airport
9. GST Flip Flop
10. Airbus Investigation
11. Voting against Red Book promise of independent Ethics Commissioner
12. Irving fishing lodge stays/travel on Irving jets for cabinet ministers
13. Martin traveling on private corporate jets as Finance Minister
14. Don Boudria's stay at Boulay owned chalet
15. Denis Coderre staying with Boulay
16. Alfonso Gagliano being appointed Ambassador to Denmark
17. Shawinigate
18. Claude Gauthier (PM's friend)'s Transelec getting CIDA grant that was questioned by the Auditor General and even CIDA.
19. Liberal fundraiser Pierre Corbeil charged with fraud by RCMP after he approached several Quebec companies seeking federal job training grants and asking for payments to Liberal Party, having gotten the names from senior Quebec Liberal Minister, Marcel Massé.
20. Michel Dupuy, Heritage Minister, lobbying the CRTC.
21. Tom Wappel refusing to help blind veteran
22. Gagliano's son benefiting from contracts from his father's department
23. Gagliano's former speechwriter, Michèle Tremblay was on a $5,000 a month retainer with the Canada Lands Company to provide speeches for the Minister. Former President John Grant let her go saying "we got nothing in return." Grant claimed that all Crown Corporations reporting to Mr. Gagliano were told to put Ms. Tremblay on a monthly retainer.
24. Iltis replacement
25. Purchase of new Challenger jets for the Prime Minister and cabinet
26. NATO Flying Training program contract
27. Liberal friends appointed as IRB judges being investigated by RCMP
There is plenty more reseasons but can't fit them all into one post
28. Hedy Fry's imaginary burning crosses
29. Maria Minna's improper municipal vote
30. Minna giving contracts to two former campaign staffers for public relations work for a conference that had already been held
31. Lawrence MacAulay and contracts directed to Holland College
32. Lawrence MacAulay and Tim Banks
33. Lawrence MacAulay hired his official agent, Everett Roche, for $70K, but Roche never did any work for it. (Oct 2002)
34. Art Eggleton and contracts to his ex-girlfriend
35. Copps' aide Boyer's spending habits
36. Collenette resigns for breach of ethical guidelines involving a letter he wrote to the Immigration and Refugee Board
37. APEC Inquiry
38. Andy Scott's 1998 resignation that came eight weeks too late, after a media circus wore him down for indiscreetly shooting his mouth off on an airplane.
39. Anti-American comments by Liberal MPs, officials, and the former Minister of Natural Resources.
40. Rock and the Apotex/Cipro affair
41. Rock giving Health Canada contract to car cleaning company.
42. Manley lobbying CIBC on behalf of Rod Bryden
43. Manley's fundraiser suggesting donors to his leadership write it off as a business expense.
44. Manley using his pre-budget consultations as Minister of Finance to solicit support for his leadership bid.
45. Coderre's relationship with Group Everest
46. Martin's fundraiser/employee of Finance Jim Palmer
47. Martin's "blind trust" and his relationship with CSL.
48. Gerry Byrne requesting fundraising money be sent to his home address, with no records kept.
49. Gerry Byrne pouring bulk of ACOA money into his own riding.
50. Virginia Fontaine Addictions Foundation
51. Prime Minister's former assistant, Denise Tremblay's huge travel expenses on Veterans Review and Appeal Board as Minister pleaded poverty to veterans' widows.
51. Prime Minister's former assistant, Denise Tremblay's huge travel expenses on Veterans Review and Appeal Board as Minister pleaded poverty to veterans' widows.
52. Chrétien appointing Hon. Roger Simmons (former Trudeau minister convicted of income tax evasion) as Consul-General in Seattle
53. Chrétien trying to bring hit-and-run driver Carignan back into caucus.
54. The RCMP is investigating possible fraud and bribery within Industry Canada, involving possible "overpayments" to recipients of federal business grants. The probe centres on the National Research Council, which hands out federal grants to small- and medium-sized businesses.
55. More than half a dozen bureaucrats have been "removed" from their jobs at a Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) in Toronto following a police investigation into projects funded under one of the department's grants and contributions programs
56. Revenue Minister Elinor Caplan called in the RCMP and ordered a sweeping security review after four tax department computers were stolen containing confidential personal information on more than 120,000 Canadians.
57. More than $7 billion stashed in Foundations by Finance Minister Paul Martin with little or no accountability
58. Dhaliwal overseing Richmond-airport-Vancouver transit line while being owner of the airport limousine service
59. Tom Rosser, former Dhaliwal advisor lobbying Natural Resources department and minister on environmental issues only months after leaving government.
60. $5.3 million GG northern travel
61. GG budget doubles in 5 years
62. Robert Thibault giving a grant as ACOA minister to a wharf and boatyard where his brother-in-law has a monopoly.
63. Royal LePage contract, which the government was forced to cancel in the wake of serious concerns being raised.
64. Shutting down the Somalia Inquiry 
__________________
Yep... they are Real Criminals...its our tax dollars they are stealing and wasting... OURS!     I am sure your all capable of making your own choice.

Cheers
Popurhedoff


----------



## Michael OLeary (2 Dec 2005)

OK, now for a balanced view, please cover in detail why the Conservatives weren't even a recognized party in the house when the Liberal majority took over.

Here's the view from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1993



> The 1993 election was the greatest defeat for a major party in Canadian history.[20] The popular vote for the Progressive Conservatives fell from 43% to 16%, while their seat count fell from 169 to two. The Conservatives did receive over 2 million votes, almost as many as Reform and considerably more than the Bloc or NDP. However, this support was evenly spread across the country, and virtually nowhere was it concentrated enough to win seats. The two seats the Conservatives won were in Saint John, New Brunswick, where popular mayor Elsie Wayne was elected, and in Sherbrooke, Quebec, where the young and charismatic Jean Charest was reelected. Former Progressive Conservative MP Gilles Bernier was also re-elected as an independent candidate in the Beauce riding in Quebec. Kim Campbell lost her own seat in Vancouver. 147 PC candidates failed to win the 15% of the vote that qualified them for funding from Elections Canada, and the party as a whole was left deeply in debt. With only two seats, the party also failed to get official party status, which prevented them from receiving funding and restricted their role in the House of Commons.



I'm open to consideration of each party - but why would we want these guys back?


----------



## Shec (2 Dec 2005)

The candidate whom I judge to have the most entertainment value will win my vote this go around.     Not that I am cyncial or anything mind you, I just can't the lyrics of The Who's Won't Get Fooled Again out of my mind:

_Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss_


----------



## redleafjumper (3 Dec 2005)

Michael, something you are missing is that the Conservative Party of Canada is not the same party as the Progressive-Conservative Party that ceased to exist when its remnants divested itself of the "Red Tories" and merged with the Canadian Alliance, previously the Reform Party of Canada.  The Conservative Party is not a party of Red Tories, it is a party of fiscal conservatives with several different issues.  Note that former Red Tory Prime Ministers Kim "get their guns" Campbell and Joe "who?" Clark are not supporters of the Conservative Party.  The PC's were much more closely aligned with the Federal liberals than the Conservative party is.  The CPC and the defunct PC party are not the same people.

Regardless, as some have stated, trust will need to be earned.  I am 100% certain that I do not trust the liberals, and I am 90% certain that a Conservative government would be better for my riding in Western Canada than the Martin liberals ever have been.  I'd like to give Harper a shot at government, popurhedoff certainly has listed many reason that he should be given the opportunity to lead this country.


----------



## Michael OLeary (3 Dec 2005)

The point is not that it's the same party - but rather that Canadians have a history of tossing out governments and then being surprised by who's running the country the next day. One way or another, it's trading known for unknown and inexperienced.  The fate of a fickle public too ready to buy into every criticisim of the governement of the day (whichever party it may be) and cry for change without knowing what they actually want in a government to start with.


----------



## redleafjumper (3 Dec 2005)

Michael, you are quite correct.  It would be much to the benefit of all of us if individual members of the electorate took the time to learn about the issues and the parties supporting them before making a choice of merely replacing one government with another.  I like to think I am voting for something I can support rather than just wanting to chuck the other rascals out.


----------



## Michael OLeary (3 Dec 2005)

Yes, and hopefully one that has made a clear enough case to actually attract enough voters to make a difference.


----------



## redleafjumper (3 Dec 2005)

Yes, that's true.  It is up to the party to show why people should vote FOR them, not just why people should vote AGAINST the other bunch.  That will be the biggest challenge for the conservatives in this election.


----------



## Joe Blow (3 Dec 2005)

> The point is not that it's the same party - but rather that Canadians have a history of tossing out governments and then being surprised by who's running the country the next day. One way or another, it's trading known for unknown and inexperienced.  The fate of a fickle public too ready to buy into every criticism of the government of the day (whichever party it may be) and cry for change without knowing what they actually want in a government to start with.




Recently we had 12 years of Liberal government (with a brief punctuation by Joe Clark), then 10 years of PC government then 12 more of Liberal gov. which brings us to this election.
Additionally, although I grant that lots of us may be especially willing to buy into criticisms of the government right now ...independent inquiry has shown that they used our taxes to fill the party's wallet and fund campaigns. (This is in addion to everything in Popurhedoff's inspired post above.) That's more significant than your run of the mill criticism.

Given these two points, I don't think it's accurate to characterize a yearning to toss the Libs as being fickle..

Every change of government is a calculated risk.  Is the devil we know bad enough that we will try what's behind curtain number two?  Well, for me the devil we know is pretty ugly ..and curtain number two is less opaque than it was ...I know a little more about what's behind there.  (for ex. last election the CPC didn't even have a party policy doc out yet ..this election they do)

I certainly agree however that we need to know what we are looking for and then vote FOR it ..rather than just "toss the bums" and wake up in bed with god knows who the next day.

But at the same time I have to ask myself; if no other party told me anything about themselves would I still vote for the people who I _know_ are stealing from me?


----------



## Infanteer (3 Dec 2005)

Perhaps a Conservative minority would be the best thing for Canada (and even the Conservative Party itself)?   A minority would keep the Conservatives honest, ensuring that they focus on good government and not sticking us in the quagmire of social issues (which the opposition would defeat them on).   An opposition that brings down a Conservative government for simply running the country may get punished for doing so, as their threats of "boogey-man" don't hold water.

In essence, a minority would allow them to prove that they are an effective "government in waiting" while ensuring that if they start playing with fire, they can be pulled down and defeated.


----------



## Joe Blow (3 Dec 2005)

I think you're completely spot on there.  

My fear though, is that (..and maybe we're getting into 'strategic voting' here) if the Conservatives don't get a plurality that outnumbers the Libs and NDP combined those two may be able to hash something out, visit the GG and tell her they can make a go of it.

I agree Conservative minority that was allowed to govern would be a good thing for the party and for the country.  In addition to keeping them honest it would also show that we have a moderate alternative to the Libs ..thereby returning us to a more healthy democratic state.

But I fear that if we don't get a Conservative majority we will be faced with a Lib./NDP coalition.  Maybe a slight Conservative minority with independents holding the balance of power would work?? ..or a bare Conservative majority?

Anyway, the best way for the Conservatives to show moderation and demonstrate that they are a palatable alternative for Canadians is to have a majority and govern moderately.  Barring unforeseen surprises on the campaign trail, I feel comfortable giving them a shot at it.


----------



## xFusilier (3 Dec 2005)

The only way the Conservatives can hold a minority is with the Bloc Quebecois holding the balance of power in the house.  If at the conclusion of this general election the Conservatives hold more seats than either the Liberals and the NDP but less than the two combined you will see a Liberal/NDP coalition.  Combined with the Bloc's position on social issues, a Conservative, minority government is a very slim possiblity.


----------



## couchcommander (3 Dec 2005)

Well I'm far too lazy to compile a list of 64 reasons to vote Liberal (don't even for a moment think they don't exist), but here are some of my favourite (not in order of importance, in order of when they occured to me)...

1) Last 12 years of Liberal rule have been the most propserous times in Canadian history
2) Only g-8 nation to be running surplus
3) First time in Canadian history there have been 8 consecutive budget surpluses
4) Unemployment lower then it has been in 30 years
5) Interest rates lowest they have been in decades
6) Crime rate down to where it was in the 70's
7) Repeated stays at #1 in the Human Development Index, currently #5
8) Best government debt to GDP ratio in G-7
9) Total debt to GDP ratio more than   20% lower than when they first took power
10) Introduced largest tax cuts in Canadian history
11) One of very few countries to now have a sustainable pension plan (corrected after 1997, not projected sustainable for at least another 75 years)
12) a bunch of social measures... but I'm not sure you guys would like most of them (I think they're a good thing)...

Just off the top of my head. 

IMO... *gasp* a former minister was impoperly registered when he *might* have lobbied the government........ when's the last time they ran a 40 billion dollar a year deficit or pushed interest rates up so high with poor fiscal management you couldn't pay your morgage? To me, at least it seems as though *serious* criticsms are fairly lacking.

To be fair, yes indeed they did tear whack loads of money out of health care, yes they did slash the defence budget. However, given the state we were in, I think it's obvious that this was necessary, and that given our CURRENT prosperity (when so much of the world is having such a hard time), that these measures have proven to be for the better in the long run. I would rather have a government that does what is right, not just what everyone wants (ie not cut GST to get votes when most respected economists in the country say it's not the best idea... and yes, of course, the Liberals have done things like this before, don't get me wrong...)

Now, with our economy back in order, we are seeing them putting the money back into these programs, but this time it's not with massive interest payments to some foreign country. Though very minor, we have already started to see our wait times beginning to fall (one must realize that the money to provide this was only started a few years ago under chretien, and really only truely financed in the last year under Martin... takes time to train doctors and build hospitals), and we are seeing the effects of money back into defence (C130-J's anyone?).


----------



## redleafjumper (3 Dec 2005)

Couchcommander, what exactly have the Liberals done that is of their own making and not the result of larger forces or the pressures of the opposition?  The perceptions about a stronger economy being the result of the activities of the Liberals are simply incorrect.  The country is benefitting from the US down turn due to the war. Economic benefits in this country are regionally based and disputable, certainly the Pine Beetle situation in British Columbia is a long term economic disaster, and again it has little to do with government and a lot to do with the weather (althought I believe that weather is a federal responsibility...).  As for social programmes, a lot of what the liberals have done I could care less about and other things such as their gun control regime and clear theft of taxpayer's money concern me a great deal.  See popurhedoff's list for more.  The reason it is hard to compile a satisfactory similiar list in favour of the Liberals is that there really isn't enough to compile one.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Dec 2005)

The person most responsible for Canada's stellar economic performance (especially since 2001) is......George W Bush.

Of course in any period of history, the driving force behind Canada's economy is the US administration. We are voting in the wrong election!


----------



## RangerRay (3 Dec 2005)

Deck Of Liberals:

http://anonalogue.blogspot.com/2005/12/deck-of-liberals.html

 ;D


----------



## couchcommander (3 Dec 2005)

I find it hard to find facts to show that the country has "benefitted" overall from the US downturn, considering 80% of our exports go there (feel free to disprove me). I think this can actually be shown in the fact that when he US took a real turn for the worst and hit a recession, our growth rate was severly affected (though, unlike in the US, we avoided recession, thanks to sound fiscal and monetary policies over the last number of years). 

"Last 12 years of Liberal rule have been the most propserous times in Canadian history" - I find it hard to believe that this was just a coincidence

"Only g-8 nation to be running surplus" - Fat wasn't trimmed by itself

"First time in Canadian history there have been 8 consecutive budget surpluses" - See above, combined with prudent planning and spending within our means is no accident

"Unemployment lower then it has been in 30 years" - targetted tax breaks, pursuing emerging markets, favourable legislation for businesses to grow, help for some industries in need.... 

"Interest rates lowest they have been in decades" - lowering debt help control inflation, which contributes to rates staying low

"Crime rate down to where it was in the 70's" - more effective criminal justice system, w/ higher employment (no, not EFFECTIVE, even I still scoff at some of the things that happen, but better)

"Repeated stays at #1 in the Human Development Index, currently #5" - you would seriously contend this is just a "happening"?

" Best government debt to GDP ratio in G-7" - see number 1 and 2

"Introduced largest tax cuts in Canadian history" - Mulroney certainly didn't do it

"One of very few countries to now have a sustainable pension plan (corrected after 1997, not projected sustainable for at least another 75 years)" - as I said, Liberals took corrective action in the late 90's to address the problem of an unsustainable program, and were sucessful

And no, it's not hard, these are just the things that came to my mind at 3 am inbetween pr0n and reading new posts. As I said, far too lazy to do 64 (too much typing). A bunch of, what i consider to be, petty little things (yes, to me 50 million in the context of 200 billion is petty, especially when very little of it can actually be shown to have made it to liberal hands) doesn't warrant discounting the absolutely rock solid economic foudation they have build over the last decade, which is allowing them to now start to shape the country socially (yay).


----------



## Infanteer (3 Dec 2005)

xFusilier said:
			
		

> The only way the Conservatives can hold a minority is with the Bloc Quebecois holding the balance of power in the house.   If at the conclusion of this general election the Conservatives hold more seats than either the Liberals and the NDP but less than the two combined you will see a Liberal/NDP coalition.



I don't know if precedent will allow it to pan out that way.  The way I understand it, the Party with the most seats gets to go to the Governor General first and to announce that it will form government.  No matter how many seats a Lib/NDP coaltion held, if the Conservative Party had more than either, it would be permitted to take a crack at government.

Now, constitutionally, should a Conservative government fall, the Governor General can ask the leader of the opposition if they can form government.  But I think the King/Byng affair set up how this will work in the real world (an unelected GG has no authority to assign a new government, only the people do).  If a Conservative minority falls, than the Prime Minister will simply call new elections - and this is where my theory of punishment comes into play if a Conservative minority is dumped for political reasons by the left.  We didn't see Stephen Harper asked by the Governor General if he could form government a few days back, so why would it happen for a Lib/NDP coalition?


----------



## xFusilier (3 Dec 2005)

Wasn't getting at that scenario.  Of course under the precendant set by King-Byng the Conservatives would be asked to form the government.  What I was getting at is that a Conservative minortiy government, given the posturing that both the NDP and the Liberals have taking would last about as long as a snowball in hell, if the NDP and the Liberals had more seats combined than the Conservatives.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Dec 2005)

xFusilier said:
			
		

> given the posturing that both the NDP and the Liberals have taking would last about as long as a snowball in hell, if the NDP and the Liberals had more seats combined than the Conservatives.



...and my response to that is maybe not, considering that Canadians wouldn't be to happy with the opposition bringing down the government right after our second election in as many years.


----------



## armyvern (3 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ...and my response to that is maybe not, considering that Canadians wouldn't be to happy with the opposition bringing down the government right after our second election in as many years.



Well, I've heard quite a few East coasters who aren't too happy with the current bringing down of the government either. Their votes won't decide much but when added up with all the relatives who feel the same living in TO and other parts of Ontario whom I've spoken to lately...it could make for a very intertesting outcome...

There was a poll published here in the paper (trying to find an on-line link to it) that shows the east coast voting liberal the same as last election and the conservatives with a drop in support of something like 8% from the last election. Most of those polled are citing the conservative focus on bring down the liberals  instead of trying to improve Canada (via a clear party platform) as the reason for their vote change from C to Lib.


----------



## xFusilier (3 Dec 2005)

...and my response, to your response is that the anchor in Liberal ideology is staying in power as long as possible.  Also I wouldn't put it past the Liberals to attempt to change precedent by attempting to have the GG ask them to form a coalition witht the NDP.  What would happen if the GG was informed by both the Liberals and the NDP that the Conservatives would not have the confidence of the house in any case and they should be allowed to form a coalition government.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Dec 2005)

Would make for an interesting scenario, that's for sure....


----------



## FlightSergeantRose (3 Dec 2005)

Who in the hell would vote for the Greens?! I just read their website and its quite a joke. Jim Harris is such a whining bitch. He's going to sue the news stations cause he won't get to participate in the debates. If people know exactly what the Greens intend to do and still vote for them then they are retards beyond all imagination.  

Sorry for my rant but I just hate the Green Party and that idiot leader, Jim Harris.


----------



## armyvern (3 Dec 2005)

Got to tell you, that the great majority of east coasters I know view the new Conservative party the very same way as the Bloc, strictly a party acting in it's Regional interests vice National interests. 

Until the Conservatives pick up and actually field a nationally accepted platform vice what seems to be the catering to Regional interests...how do you expect persons not from that region to support them by casting their vote for them??


----------



## redleafjumper (3 Dec 2005)

The Liberal party is one of the most regional there is except for the BQ.  Strong in Ontario, weak to non-existant in Quebec, BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba.  They conservatives have a much broader national representation, except that they are weak in Quebec.   Really all of the federal parties are more and more regionally based, that's fallout from the Mulroney - Lucien Bouchard break-up.

I just donated $100 to my favourite national political party.  I encourage others to belly up and support the party of their choice (especially if it is the one I will be supporting!).


----------



## Infanteer (3 Dec 2005)

I dislike parties in general - my vote is all the one I like is going to get.


----------



## RangerRay (3 Dec 2005)

armyvern said:
			
		

> Got to tell you, that the great majority of east coasters I know view the new Conservative party the very same way as the Bloc, strictly a party acting in it's Regional interests vice National interests.
> 
> Until the Conservatives pick up and actually field a nationally accepted platform vice what seems to be the catering to Regional interests...how do you expect persons not from that region to support them by casting their vote for them??



So fighting drug crime, repairing healthcare, reducing the GST and making gornernment accountable are regional interests?  Silly me!  Here I thought they were national intersts...

Of course the Liberals are the only national party.  After all, their strength lies in Ontario and the Atlantic provinces...

 :


----------



## xFusilier (3 Dec 2005)

> Of course the Liberals are the only national party.  After all, their strength lies in Ontario and the Atlantic provinces...



Hate to smash into your fuschia sky reality here, but the Liberals have managed to elect more MP's outside of Ontario than the Conservatives have outside of the Western Provinces.  Whilst some of the issues that you have mentioned are national issues, let's face facts.  The manner in which the Conservatives want to address drug crime is through minimum sentencing, not addressing issues of addiction or poverty.  The cuts to the GST have been panned by most economists outside of the CTF, which basically is a wing of the Conservative Party.  The fact of the matter is that Stephen Harper and many of the key players in the Conservative party have spent more time publicly advocating for the Welfare of Alberta (the firewall report) at the expense of the welfare of the nation is it any suprise that the rest of the country sees them as a regional party.  Voters also have long memories, people in Atlantic Canada when they go to the polls sure as heck will remember Jason Kenny's remarks about Atlantic Canadians (for which the leader of the party at the time should have fired him) and vote appropriately.


----------



## UberCree (4 Dec 2005)

BadBird said:
			
		

> Who in the hell would vote for the Greens?! I just read their website and its quite a joke. Jim Harris is such a whining *****. He's going to sue the news stations cause he won't get to participate in the debates. If people know exactly what the Greens intend to do and still vote for them then they are retards beyond all imagination.


Here is one retard. :
I do not agree with 100% of the party's policies (who would with any party), but I do think that they are a viable option for voters.  In fact 5% of Canadians would agree, which means they SHOULD be included in national debates.  How else can people point out how ludicrous their policies are....   Why not include them in national debates.... (sorry the questioan mark on my keyboard does not work, which is why the original poll has no question mark).
Once they get more mainstream voters they will lose their looniness on some issues and become more moderate.  For example their belief in 'non-violence' defies logic.  They need public debate to realize this.   HOWEVER, Canada needs to move away from a way of thinking that exploits the earth and encourages consumption to a more holistic model... for our long term health.  Their policies supporting preventative health care, proportional representation, lowering of corporate taxes and increasing gas and other 'harmful' consumption taxes make sense in my eyes.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Dec 2005)

I am for the "Green" platform on preventative health care, lowering of corporate taxes and increasing gas and other 'harmful' consumption taxes except for one tiny problem: how they propose to do these things. 

Greens are "Watermelon" socialists, green on the outside, but red on the inside. You could get most of the same results by removing government subsidies and market distorting tax incentives, and faster and cheaper to boot.


----------



## UberCree (4 Dec 2005)

Yeah but where's the fun in that   ???.   How will that make ME feel better...its all about me remember!
Plus that doesnt sound very holistic and earthy... it needs to be spiced up with flowery language and metaphor.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Dec 2005)

If the Green Party would release a Platform like "Vote Green; Throat-punching polluters and Saving the economy!" I'd vote for them.


----------



## UberCree (4 Dec 2005)

I like it!

Vote Green, or you descendants will die a slow and painful death.
Vote Green, or we'll all DIE!

I see a movie in the making.  ''Team GREEN: World Police!''  
Theme song,
 Recycling; F*&k YEAH!


----------



## Infanteer (4 Dec 2005)

:rofl:


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 Dec 2005)

Hmmm .... recycling .... Soylent Green?


----------



## winchable (4 Dec 2005)

Delicious soylent green!!!!


----------



## armyvern (4 Dec 2005)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> The Liberal party is one of the most regional there is except for the BQ.   Strong in Ontario, weak to non-existant in Quebec, BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba.


This is the scenario that I recall from the Conservatives after our last election. Strong in the West, especially Alberta, but weak to non-existant in Quebec, Ontario and the Atlantic provinces.


			
				redleafjumper said:
			
		

> They conservatives have a much broader national representation, except that they are weak in Quebec.     Really all of the federal parties are more and more regionally based, that's fallout from the Mulroney - Lucien Bouchard break-up.


From the East Coast, that's not what I'm seeing and hearing. I was a strong 'C' prior to the merge of the parties and their morphing into what they are today. Now, I'm not so sure. The Leader and some of his high profiler's have made some pretty silly remarks, with their East coasters don't like to work statements, anti-same sex marriage drivel etc and a lot of other things that I consider when walking into the booth to place my vote. Their lack of a clear cut and viable Defense Policy also worries me, especially when they allow ex-Generals whom I consider to be way out of the loop by today's standards to continue blabbing. Until they fix up that situation and get a grip on those who feel the need to continuosly slap the right coast in the face with ignorant/ill-thought out remarks...I fear my vote may be swinging as well. Stand there and insult us, a very proud segment of this country, and then turn around and ask us to support you in office? It just doesn't quite make sense to me.


			
				redleafjumper said:
			
		

> I just donated $100 to my favourite national political party.   I encourage others to belly up and support the party of their choice (especially if it is the one I will be supporting!).


Maybe...maybe not. They've got a few weeks left to get a grip, pick up their socks and convince me. Tonight, I'm still waiting.


----------



## paracowboy (4 Dec 2005)

Conservative.


----------



## FlightSergeantRose (4 Dec 2005)

UberCree said:
			
		

> Here is one retard. :
> I do not agree with 100% of the party's policies (who would with any party), but I do think that they are a viable option for voters.   In fact 5% of Canadians would agree, which means they SHOULD be included in national debates.   How else can people point out how ludicrous their policies are....     Why not include them in national debates.... (sorry the questioan mark on my keyboard does not work, which is why the original poll has no question mark).
> Once they get more mainstream voters they will lose their looniness on some issues and become more moderate.   For example their belief in 'non-violence' defies logic.   They need public debate to realize this.     HOWEVER, Canada needs to move away from a way of thinking that exploits the earth and encourages consumption to a more holistic model... for our long term health.   Their policies supporting preventative health care, proportional representation, lowering of corporate taxes and increasing gas and other 'harmful' consumption taxes make sense in my eyes.




How about being a little more realistic? Only a "retard" would think that their policies are implementable without causing harm to Canada and its economy. I thought specific personal attacks like the one you just made towards me are against the new rules you were suppose to read. . . I'm sure an admin will get on that. . .


----------



## Infanteer (5 Dec 2005)

Badbird,

You've referred to supporters of the Green Party as "retards" twice now - even though you dropped the good debate on this thread to a low level, I saw nothing in Ubercree's response to fit your claim of an attack.  Rocks, glass houses and whatever.

How other Canadians decide to use their vote is up to them, and your use of the term "retard" twice now is unacceptable.  Drop it down a notch or five or you'll get an introduction to the Warning system and the Army.ca jumpmaster.

Keep it clean.


----------



## UberCree (5 Dec 2005)

BadBird said:
			
		

> How about being a little more realistic? Only a "retard" would think that their policies are implementable without causing harm to Canada and its economy. I thought specific personal attacks like the one you just made towards me are against the new rules you were suppose to read. . . I'm sure an admin will get on that. . .



Please show me ANY evidence that Green policies would harm Canada's economy in the long run.  Sure I agree it may shift from certain sectors to others, but in the LONG run it would in fact be better for the economy.   Take water for example; If we continue to export and misuse our water resources we will lose out.  Water in the next millenium will be as valuable as oil, yet we are wasting it en masse.  We should be treating water as a potential commodity that could make Canada the wolrds richest country some day, as Oil makes Saudi Arabia wealthy.  Let's think long term.  Sure we can keep a few more people employed by subsidizing logging, farming and mining operations, but who wins in the long run?
By the way I support the Seal hunt.  I think for the party to oppose it is illogical.  I am still willing to support them however.
"A wise man learns more from a fool than a fool from a wise man."  I read that in a fortune cookie once, but I do not understand it. ;D


----------



## Glorified Ape (6 Dec 2005)

I'll be voting Liberal. Harper's about as attractive to me as a herpetic sore on my eye. The Sponsorship Scandal and everything associated with it stinks, but I'm not going to cut my nose off to spite my face and, lacking any viable alternative, I'll stick with the Libs. 



			
				SoF said:
			
		

> Yeap I checked out that site earlier today; LOL the "Marijuana Party", don't they think we have bigger concerns than de-criminalzing pot???



It's a protest party - it's not actually there to be elected.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (6 Dec 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I'll be voting Liberal. Harper's about as attractive to me as a herpetic sore on my eye. The Sponsorship Scandal and everything associated with it stinks, but I'm not going to cut my nose off to spite my face and, lacking any viable alternative, I'll stick with the Libs.



Care to elaborate by citing policy or would you prefer to stick with a pedantic personal attack as your primary justification?



Matthew.


----------



## Monsoon (6 Dec 2005)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Care to elaborate by citing policy or would you prefer to stick with a pedantic personal attack as your primary justification?


I'm pretty sure it's called an "opinion".  In any case, this isn't an election about policy - the Liberals occupy the center and the Conservatives are doing their best to make policy to try to get a piece of it.  This election (as with most others) is about who voters feel will best govern the country: the Liberals, who suffer under a shadow cast by a 10-year-old scandal that was throughly investigated by a commission named by a Liberal government, or the Conservatives, whose caucus features no federal and very little provincial/municipal-level governing experience.  The "scary" thing about the Conservative Party isn't Harper, but that Harper is the brightest light on an otherwise very dim string of bulbs.  Christ, the Conservative candidate in my riding owns a scrapyard, and this is an urban riding!  It galls me to imagine someone with so little to recommend him cruising to a parliamentary seat on the back of a backlash against the Liberals.


----------



## dutchie (6 Dec 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure it's called an "opinion".   In any case, this isn't an election about policy



I don't think the tone and focus of the entire campaign can be ascertained yet. So far, it HAS been about policies, namely the Conservative proposals on tax relief and child care, and the Liberal and NDP responses to those announcements. I suspect that the first half to 3/4 of the campaign will be focussed on issues, policy, and platforms, and the last couple of weeks on integrity in Government (Conservative-driven), and the Boogey-man factor (Liberal driven).



			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> It galls me to imagine someone with so little to recommend him cruising to a parliamentary seat on the back of a backlash against the Liberals.



Come to BC, where we haven't voted FOR a party in decades in Provincial elections.


----------



## AoD71 (6 Dec 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Come to BC, where we haven't voted FOR a party in decades in Provincial elections.



Yea, I think it's like that all over Canada. You vote for the sake of keeping someone else out of power  ^-^.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Dec 2005)

Quote from Hamiltongs,
_Christ, the Conservative candidate in my riding owns a scrapyard, and this is an urban riding!_

You are a sanctimonious slice of urine............yea, damn him for being a hard working small business owner who also helps the environment by making sure things get reused and then, if no good, get recycled.

Duck, your high horse is approaching some trees.......


----------



## Michael Dorosh (6 Dec 2005)

I'd welcome a small businessman if it meant one less lawyer in Parliament...

So what should the prerequisite occupation be in order to be elected MP?  We know it isn't soldier, sailor or airman.


----------



## Armymedic (6 Dec 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I'll be voting Liberal. Harper's about as attractive to me as a herpetic sore on my eye. The Sponsorship Scandal and everything associated with it stinks, but I'm not going to cut my nose off to spite my face and, lacking any viable alternative, I'll stick with the Libs.


You Sir, should cut off your nose, cause you can't see anything past it. There are 2 viable alternatives. Both the Consv and NDP have ideas how they can run this country better then the past goverments of the last 12 yrs. No wait, the last yr or so the NDP *have* been running the country...so the Liberals could hold gov't.



			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> The "scary" thing about the Conservative Party isn't Harper, but that Harper is the brightest light on an otherwise very dim string of bulbs.   Christ, the Conservative candidate in my riding owns a scrapyard, and this is an urban riding!   It galls me to imagine someone with so little to recommend him cruising to a parliamentary seat on the back of a backlash against the Liberals.



I guess the fact that the Liberal party spent most of its time trying to get some of those dim bulbs to cross the floor has nothing to do with your opinion.

You know what galls my prairie farmboy guts, is that you city folk can't look past the money and the pretty suits to see that our country has been robbed during the last 10-12 yrs in an effort to retain power. That and over taxing the population so that they can say" Oh look how good we are governing, we have another budget surplus. Now look how generous we are by giving that money back to you." Never mind that thats OUR money to start with.   Last time I checked, governing wasn't supposed to be a For-Profit endevour. Its supposed to be zero balance budgeting, ie income from taxes etc = out going monies.

And while I am at it...name one intiative, name on flicker of leadership that the Liberal party has provided our country in the last decade. OK now name 2 programs failed miserably, wait thats too easy, name 3. 

So other then your Ontario media fed opinion that the Conservative party candidates are dim, give us one good reason...just one, why the Conservative Party can not lead this country better then the past Liberal government has?

And I'll even stretch these comments for you two gentlemen to include the NDP, why can't they lead this country better then the past Liberal government has?




			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> I'd welcome a small businessman if it meant one less lawyer in Parliament...
> 
> So what should the prerequisite occupation be in order to be elected MP?   We know it isn't soldier, sailor or airman.


Well, not in the Liberal party...but atleast the Conservatives will entertain your nomination. Too bad Lew didn't win, and there is this guy who I would like to see as our next MND or Min of Foreign Affairs.



> Seventeen months ago, retired military pilot Laurie Hawn came within striking distance of taking Edmonton Centre from Anne McLellan, Deputy Prime Minister of Canada and holder of one of only two Liberal seats in Alberta.
> 
> Hawn's strong suit is his background -- he retired as a lieutenant-colonel to launch a successful investment career -- and a reputation for integrity at a time when it seems in short supply federally


----------



## RangerRay (6 Dec 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Christ, the Conservative candidate in my riding owns a scrapyard, and this is an urban riding!   It galls me to imagine someone with so little to recommend him cruising to a parliamentary seat on the back of a backlash against the Liberals.



Ah yes, we can't have one of the great unwashed aspiring to represent his peers in parliament...

 :

A prime example of Liberal arrogance and conceit.


----------



## Infanteer (6 Dec 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Christ, the Conservative candidate in my riding owns a scrapyard, and this is an urban riding!   It galls me to imagine someone with so little to recommend him cruising to a parliamentary seat on the back of a backlash against the Liberals.



LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

Your battleship awaits you, your Excellency.   :clown:


----------



## Joe Blow (6 Dec 2005)

I can't add too much to armymedic's inspired reply, but I wanted to toss this out:



> The "scary" thing about the Conservative Party isn't Harper, but that Harper is the brightest light on an otherwise very dim string of bulbs.  Christ, the Conservative candidate in my riding owns a scrapyard, and this is an urban riding!



Well the Conservative candidate in my riding is a Rhodes scholar with degrees from Oxford and Princeton (..and if that's not enough, he used to play for the Ottawa Roughriders.)

Also:



> I'd welcome a small businessman if it meant one less lawyer in Parliament...





> Christ, the Conservative candidate in my riding owns a scrapyard, and this is an urban riding



Umm.. doesn't that make him something of a small businessman / entrepreneur?  Maybe his self-employment / independence isn't fancy enough for you?  Maybe he should apologize for being such simple little man and step aside.  Surely he couldn't have anything useful to add.  [end scarcasm]  You are bloody arrogant.

edit:
Rangerray:





> A prime example of Liberal arrogance and conceit.


Hear hear!


----------



## a_majoor (7 Dec 2005)

Seems a scrapyard owner would have lots to offer:

The first hand knowledge of how taxes and regulations affect business

An understanding of economic principles like "Supply and Demand"

The ability to balance a chequebook, or read a balance sheet

The ability to talk to people at their own level (i.e. prospecting for customers, dealing with clients)

Hands on environmental knowledge.

*Quick, how many of these people can we nominate!*


----------



## Cloud Cover (7 Dec 2005)

Geeze Arthur: Tom Gosnell used to be able to do all those things too!!


----------



## a_majoor (7 Dec 2005)

Yeah, but he became a "Full Time" politician.  :

One more reason to support term limits!


----------



## AoD71 (7 Dec 2005)

OR this Scrapyard could be a front for some grizzly things going on "behind closed doors", ie; money laundering! This thought reminds me of "Gone in 60 Seconds"!


----------



## redleafjumper (7 Dec 2005)

The important thing is to have a variety of people from a variety of backgrounds to represent what is a diverse country.  The Conservative party has the most gender, ethnically and employment background diverse MPs of the parties in the last parliament.  

I quite like Infanteer's fitting allusion to Gilbert and Sullivan's H.M.S. Pinafore:

"...Of legal knowledge I acquired such a grip
That they took me into the partnership.
And that junior partnership, I ween,
Was the only ship that I ever had seen.
But that kind of ship so suited me,
That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

I grew so rich that I was sent
By a pocket borough into Parliament.
I always voted at my party's call,
And I never thought of thinking for myself at all.
I thought so little, they rewarded me
By making me the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!..."

Funny how art captures liberal life.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (7 Dec 2005)

I will continue to vote conservative until the party proves to me that they are as corrupt as the liberals at which point I guess I will resort to NDP. Its amazing to once again see the election adds from all parties that bombard us with their "promises".

 How about a party making this statement: "If my party is elected, I will guarantee the following election promises will be implemented within 6 months of being in power or I will personally resign"

 All we hear is what they promise based over 10 years or BS comments like old Jean's promise to get rid of the GST all together.


----------



## AoD71 (7 Dec 2005)

SHELLDRAKE!! said:
			
		

> ...like old Jean's promise to get rid of the GST all together.



Yea. That would be nice.


----------



## rifleman (7 Dec 2005)

AoD71 said:
			
		

> OR this Scrapyard could be a front for some grizzly things going on "behind closed doors", ie; money laundering! This thought reminds me of "Gone in 60 Seconds"!



If the latter was true, then he is a prime candidate for office. ;D


----------



## Monsoon (7 Dec 2005)

Now that that shower of horsesh*t has subsided:



> You are a sanctimonious slice of urine


I'm pretty sure there was a posting on another board a couple days ago warning people to focus on debating ideas and not attacking the author.  I trust that holds as true for people participating in the forum as for litigious journalists - it's not just the law, it's a good idea.



> I'd welcome a small businessman if it meant one less lawyer in Parliament...


And I'm no more fond of the McGill Law route to federal office than you, but let's look at some things required of an _effective_ legislator:
- Detailed knowledge of the law, its practice, and its implementation;
- Proven ability to think critically;
- Knowledge of government organizations and their function.

A lawyer requires all of these things and a scrapyard operator requires none of them.  Maybe the scrapyard operator has these abilities, but I have no particular reason to believe that he does given his CV.  The bottom line is that there are very few people who can make the jump straight to federal politics and be effective in the role.  Everyone else should expect to have to gain some political experience at the municipal level, or by working in or closely with government or in some other way - you know, down in the "grass roots".  I don't think that should be beneath anyone who aspires to federal office.



> So other then your Ontario media fed opinion that the Conservative party candidates are dim, give us one good reason...just one, why the Conservative Party can not lead this country better then the past Liberal government has?


Fortunately I don't have to give "one good reason" why I don't think the Conservatives are up to leading the country.  The burden of proof is on them to prove to me that they are.  They haven't yet, so I'm unwilling to vote for them.  You don't have to like that - I really don't care.  I guess you can just keep complaining about how those stupid Ontario losers don't vote for your party if you don't want to find out.  And I'm not from Ontario, by the by.



> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE HAVE A WINNER!!!
> Your battleship awaits you, your Excellency.


While still uncomplimentary, this insult at least has the benefit of being opaque.  It leaves the reader puzzling what on earth the writer was talking about and causes them to forget that there was actually no argument brought against the points you raised.  You folks should take lessons from the master, here.



> Well the Conservative candidate in my riding is a Rhodes scholar with degrees from Oxford and Princeton (..and if that's not enough, he used to play for the Ottawa Roughriders.)


Good, it sounds like you have a lot of reasons to vote for him.  I wish he was running in my riding.



> Umm.. doesn't that make him something of a small businessman / entrepreneur?  Maybe his self-employment / independence isn't fancy enough for you?  Maybe he should apologize for being such simple little man and step aside.  Surely he couldn't have anything useful to add.  [end scarcasm]  You are bloody arrogant.


It's not a matter of "fanciness", it's a matter of knowing a thing or two about government.  I respect self-employers, but he's going to need some experience in government before he gets my vote. Compared to the Liberal candidate in my riding (long career in broadcast media, former provincial cabinet minister, current federal cabinet minister), he can't compare with his existing experience.  Just getting the nomination and running the riding's campaign isn't enough.



> Hands on environmental knowledge


I see what you're trying to get at here, but you've got to be kidding about that last one.  The man owns an urban lot that he piles scrap cars in; he's not an environmental engineer.


----------



## Infanteer (7 Dec 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> While still uncomplimentary, this insult at least has the benefit of being opaque.   It leaves the reader puzzling what on earth the writer was talking about and causes them to forget that there was actually no argument brought against the points you raised.   You folks should take lessons from the master, here.



The clown on the end should have been the give-away that your statement was the winner of the Army.ca "Post of the Month" award - your prize is in the mail.

Just because I love it so much:



			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Christ, the Conservative candidate in my riding owns a scrapyard, and this is an urban riding!   It galls me to imagine someone with so little to recommend him cruising to a parliamentary seat on the back of a backlash against the Liberals.



...you ever hear about not judging a book by its cover?   What does running a scrapyard have to do with the ability to be a good legislator?   There are plenty of people with humble origins that have made good representatives.

You give a list of vaunted characteristics that seem to come with passing the Bar, but I look at consecutive government scandals and at the forefront of all of them I see folks who are "experienced with politics, have knowledge of the law and government and have a proven ability to think critically."   Seems Mr Chretien was the epitome of that statement.

It's too bad you left "character" out of your requirements.   Instead you chose to lift your nose, open your mouth, and "remove all doubt"....


----------



## dutchie (7 Dec 2005)

Nice waffle there, _sir_.



			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> And I'm no more fond of the McGill Law route to federal office than you, but let's look at some things required of an _effective_ legislator:
> - Detailed knowledge of the law, its practice, and its implementation;



Well, AFAIK, most of the nitty gritty legal crap is done by ADMs, advisors, etc - the non-elected civil servant SMEs. The average backbencher relies on those folks. The average effective backbencher MP brings ideas, leadership, and common sense...IMHO.



			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> A lawyer requires all of these things and a scrapyard operator requires none of them.   Maybe the scrapyard operator has these abilities, but I have no particular reason to believe that he does given his CV.



Have you bothered to find out? Or are you just assuming he doesn't? In my books, a smart voter researches the candidates in his riding prior to coming to a conclusion on the best candidate to represent him. If a candidate's party precludes the voter in supporting him, regardless of the candidate's credentials or abilities, then that's fine. But you didn't say that. You discounted this candidate based on his occupation/social class. 



			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Fortunately I don't have to give "one good reason" why I don't think the Conservatives are up to leading the country.   The burden of proof is on them to prove to me that they are.



Again, it really is YOUR responsiblity, not your right, to use due diligence when voting. Maybe we should all just look at ethnicity, gender, age, social class, occupation, and sexual orientation when choosing candidates. After all, you appear, by your own admission, to have considered this man's occupation and class over his politics or abilities. Maybe we should all be so goddamed ignorant.


----------



## Monsoon (7 Dec 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Nice waffle there, _sir_.


Didn't you mean to say, "Wow, an officer and an elitist.  This villain has it all, doesn't he guys?"  By the way, where do you think I waffled?



> Well, AFAIK, most of the nitty gritty legal crap is done by ADMs, advisors, etc - the non-elected civil servant SMEs. The average backbencher relies on those folks. The average effective backbencher MP brings ideas, leadership, and common sense...IMHO.


You've been misinformed.  For an MP to be anything more than a highly-paid seat-warmer requires actual trade knowledge in the working of governments.  Does an infantry Major need to know anything about section attacks?  By your logic, no.



> Have you bothered to find out? Or are you just assuming he doesn't? In my books, a smart voter researches the candidates in his riding prior to coming to a conclusion on the best candidate to represent him. If a candidate's party precludes the voter in supporting him, regardless of the candidate's credentials or abilities, then that's fine. But you didn't say that. You discounted this candidate based on his occupation/social class.


I certainly tried out find out more about him.  This was in the last election and his website had literally no information other than that he was the owner/operator of a scrapyard.  I find it telling, however, that you jumped to the conclusion that I was biased against him for reasons of class rather than that he had no evident professional ability to do the job.  It really speaks to your insecurities.



> Again, it really is YOUR responsiblity, not your right, to use due diligence when voting. Maybe we should all just look at ethnicity, gender, age, social class, occupation, and sexual orientation when choosing candidates. After all, you appear, by your own admission, to have considered this man's occupation and class over his politics or abilities. Maybe we should all be so goddamed ignorant.


So that's going to be the Conservative party's campaign slogan in this election, "Go find out for yourself, asshole"?  Well, with that winning formula for success, all they have to do is make sure the victory party is well-stocked with cheetos and wait for the votes to roll on in.  Going out and "selling" yourself is so passé these days.  Fast fact: people judge you on the information you make available to them, like when you assumed that I was a classist dickhead because all you knew about me was that I was an officer - remember that?  If all you tell people is that you're the owner/operator of a scrapyard, your professional suitability for the job is going to be judged solely on that.


----------



## Armymedic (7 Dec 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Fortunately I don't have to give "one good reason" why I don't think the Conservatives are up to leading the country.   The burden of proof is on them to prove to me that they are.   They haven't yet, so I'm unwilling to vote for them.   You don't have to like that - I really don't care.   I guess you can just keep complaining about how those stupid Ontario losers don't vote for your party if you don't want to find out.   And I'm not from Ontario, by the by.


Never said you were from Ontario, just that your opinion the Consv are dim is fueled by a bias in the Ontario media against the (Reform)Conservative Party...I know cause I do live in Ontario, and see the news, and do shake my head at the subtle differences in coverage between the two primary parties.

You are right that the Consv party needs to provide you with the burden of proof that they worthy of governing, as all parties do. I believe they are. It is the Conservatives who are bringing forth the planks of thier platform, telling all of us what thier goals and main efforts are going to be once they are elected.

On the flip side, the Liberals seem to be just reacting to Conservative platform annoucements. IMHO doing a fair to poor job of matching the clear desicsive statements Harper is providing. Their reaction to Harper's GST cut announcement is case and point.

So to answer my own question for you: to me the Liberals have shown me that they are no longer worthy of leaing the country due to thier lack of direction, clear leadership, and poor intiative so far in this election campaign.


----------



## dutchie (7 Dec 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> You've been misinformed.   For an MP to be anything more than a highly-paid seat-warmer requires actual trade knowledge in the working of governments.



So this Uber-Liberal you're voting for was ineffective as a Provincial legislator when he started out, as you stated that his background was broadcating....right? The way you post, a guy either has to spend 6 years or so getting a Law degree, or he has to work his way up through the backend in say, Policy and Planning as a civil servant. No room for entreprenuers or other hard-working intelligent 'regular folk'. Lawyers and Poli-Sci SMEs only please. Very enlightened.



			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> I find it telling, however, that you jumped to the conclusion that I was biased against him for reasons of class rather than that he had no evident professional ability to do the job.



You stated/inferred two things about this candidate - that he was not capable of being a decent MP, and that he was a scrap yard owner. I assume that his status as a self-employed person is not what preculdes him in your eyes, so I can only summize that it is the blue-collar class that you were referring to. 





			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> So that's going to be the Conservative party's campaign slogan in this election, "Go find out for yourself, *******"?   Going out and "selling" yourself is so passÃƒÆ’© these days.



Obviously not. However, if you are suggesting that we just sit back and get fed by the media on the qualities of the candiates, you're a fool. If you could care less who is your MP, and are more concerned with the leader and the Party policies, then this man's job matters little, and it's the party that matters. The only time the MPs credentials really matter is in reference to how well he will represent you in Ottawa, and what he can or is willing to do for your riding. Mass media is great for telling you what the leaders say and propose, but are not as good at telling you about individual candidates and their ideas on issues important to the riding and Canada as a whole. That's why if you care at all about what he will do for the rinding, you HAVE to research the various candidates. 





			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Fast fact: people judge you on the information you make available to them, like when you assumed that I was a classist fool because all you knew about me was that I was an officer - remember that?



I was judging you on your idiotic and ignorant post, not your rank.



			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> By the way, where do you think I waffled?



You were getting flamed for an obviously retarded post. Instead of owning up to it, you tried to weasel your way out of it. Hence the waffle.


----------



## armyvern (7 Dec 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> And I'm no more fond of the McGill Law route to federal office than you, but let's look at some things required of an _effective_ legislator:
> - Detailed knowledge of the law, its practice, and its implementation;
> - Proven ability to think critically;
> - Knowledge of government organizations and their function.
> A lawyer requires all of these things and a scrapyard operator requires none of them.



Wow Hamiltongs you have me completely flabbergasted with this ill-thought out diatribe. 
Legislator's need to be *willing to serve their country* (ie put one's country before self), in the interests of the nation. One does not need any kind of degree or million dollar severance package to be capable of doing this. 

Quite frankly, the "lowly commoner" may be much more adept at being able to pull this off than the high priced suits as eveidenced by the current situation and past liberal and conservative scandels, politiking and cover one's ass mentality all federal parties seem to do so well at.

In essence your quote above says:

A jury of my peers is good enough and has enough reasoning, deductive skills and intelligence to find my ass guilty in a court of law and send my butt to jail for life if required, BUT

They do not have enough reasoning, deductive skills or intelligence to be running for office where they would have the opportunity to determine whether those same laws or practices should be overhauled etc etc.

Wow, sky is getting to be quite the purple haze in here isn't it?? Condescending attitudes seem to do that to people.


----------



## Monsoon (7 Dec 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> So this Uber-Liberal you're voting for was ineffective as a Provincial legislator when he started out, as you stated that his background was broadcating....right? The way you post, a guy either has to spend 6 years or so getting a Law degree, or he has to work his way up through the backend in say, Policy and Planning as a civil servant. No room for entreprenuers or other hard-working intelligent 'regular folk'. Lawyers and Poli-Sci SMEs only please. Very enlightened.


The "Uber-Liberal" in question (since I gather you think I made her up) is Liza Frulla, the Heritage Minister.  The point I was making is that she didn't just cruise into federal politics, she worked her way up through progressively more high-profile positions in the private sector, spent a few years as a political commentator, and went into "entry-level" politics as a provincial MP.  I admit she skipped the municipal step, but I'd argue her knowledge of government was established enough that that was warranted.

I definitely wouldn't say someone is suited to hold federal office simply on the basis of having finished a law degree.  Obviously there are a huge number of possible ways of working your way up, but I would suggest that "small business owner; missing step; federal MP" isn't one of them.  Note that this view of the world also rules out that nitwit Justin Trudeau from sashay-ing onto the federal scene without putting his time in like everyone else - it has nothing to do with class.



> You stated/inferred two things about this candidate - that he was not capable of being a decent MP, and that he was a scrap yard owner. I assume that his status as a self-employed person is not what preculdes him in your eyes, so I can only summize that it is the blue-collar class that you were referring to.


I didn't refer to class; everyone else did.  You can ask them what they were talking about, but that would really tell you more about them than me.



> Obviously not. However, if you are suggesting that we just sit back and get fed by the media on the qualities of the candiates, you're a fool. If you could care less who is your MP, and are more concerned with the leader and the Party policies, then this man's job matters little, and it's the party that matters. The only time the MPs credentials really matter is in reference to how well he will represent you in Ottawa, and what he can or is willing to do for your riding. Mass media is great for telling you what the leaders say and propose, but are not as good at telling you about individual candidates and their ideas on issues important to the riding and Canada as a whole. That's why if you care at all about what he will do for the rinding, you HAVE to research the various candidates.


Which I did.  I found that the Liberal candidate had a very successful career and years of government experience at different levels, while the Conservative candidate had nothing in particular to recommend him to the job of federal legislator.  The decision seems pretty obvious.  In other news, the Bloc candidate (who's likely to win, in fact) is a 26-year old with a computer science degree and no work experience at all.  I don't think he should be serving as a federal MP either.



> You were getting flamed for an obviously retarded post. Instead of owning up to it, you tried to weasel your way out of it. Hence the waffle.


It's called an argument.  I think if you'll cool the knee-jerk for a second and reflect, you'll find that it's actually a pretty reasonable one.



			
				armyvern said:
			
		

> Wow, sky is getting to be quite the purple haze in here isn't it?? Condescending attitudes seem to do that to people.


???


----------



## redleafjumper (7 Dec 2005)

Liberal plans to ban handguns give me yet another reason to vote my lifestyle and support the Conservatives.


----------



## McG (7 Dec 2005)

The poll options were moderately limitted, so I've added the option "other."  If you are one of those people that does not want to vote for any of the big parties, then be sure to give the little ones a look.  Here is a quick selection of some of the Parties:

Liberal Party of Canada
Conservative Party of Canada
New Democratic Party
Green Party
Canadian Action Party
Freedom Party of Canada
Libertarian Party of Canada
Grey Party of Canada
Bloc Québécois 
Progressive Canadian Party
Communist Party of Canada

... and also have a look here: http://www.elections.ca/intro.asp?section=pol&document=index&lang=e&textonly=false


----------



## Glorified Ape (8 Dec 2005)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Care to elaborate by citing policy or would you prefer to stick with a pedantic personal attack as your primary justification?
> 
> Matthew.



A pedantic personal attack, eh? Please consult the dictionary before using words you're unfamiliar with: 

_pe ·dan ·tic (pÉâ„¢-dÃ„Æ’n'tÃ„Â­k) 
adj.
Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules: a pedantic attention to details._

Saying that Harper is as attractive to me as a herpetic sore is neither pedantic, as it does not involve book learning, formal rules or an ostentatious concern for either, nor is it a personal attack as it makes no judgement of his character, physical appearance, intelligence, or anything else - it only demonstrates his lack of political appeal to myself. 

As for my issues with the Conservative platform, I've gone over that in another thread quite some time ago: 

Agree: 
1. Military spending - they're promising a 1.2 (or 1.7, can't recall) billion dollar/year infusion for the next few years - that would be great, assuming they could actually do it. I believe they could and, though I'm not likely to vote for them, would look forward to it if they got into power. 
2. Gun registry - It hasn't worked and it isn't likely to work. It was a waste of money. They want to scrap it and I'm inclined to agree, though it seems a waste now that the infrastructure/etc. has already been established. 

Disagree:
1. Foreign policy - by the sounds of things - namely making broad references to encouraging "democratic ideals" (complete with rhetoric) and policing "rogue states", the Conservative foreign policy sounds strikingly like that of the US, which I can't get behind in its current state. 
2. Healthcare - I agree with some of the reforms put forward by the Conservatives but there's also an agenda, I believe, in the party to pursue two-tiered healthcare which I don't support.
3. Criminal sentencing - The Conservatives want a "3 strikes" policy similar to the US where 3 violent offences earn you a dangerous offender tag (and thus an interminable sentence). On top of that, they want to have 14 year olds tried in adult court as a SOP for violent/repeat offenders - not something I agree with. 
4. Gay marriage - Harper wants to rescind the case and have parliament (under his government) legislate against the matter (IE outlaw it). I support gay marriage and I have no desire to see the parliament legislating against it, which it will undoubtedly do under a Conservative majority. 
5. Fixed election dates - Why? The limit is 5 years and the ability of the PM to call an election anytime within that period allows for more frequent consultation of the electorate. Sure, the PM can call it when his ratings are high, but such are the advantages of the incumbency. It's not undemocratic.
6. Business - cutting corporate subsidies isn't necessarily a bad idea, but to which businesses is the question. By virtue of their need, small business needs adequate subsidies more. The cuts Harper's pushing aren't going to hurt big business, they're going to hurt the small ones. 
7. Universities - Harper's plan isn't to fund universities better, but to increase the number of loans available for students. Cut tuition costs and they won't need so many loans, won't accrue such staggering debts, etc. Instead, he's just offering more pogey. 
8. Ambassador to US - making him a cabinet member? Christ. Enough. Establishing ANOTHER bureaucracy just to deal with Canada/US stuff? We already have one and it's quite sufficient. The Conservative penchant for Ameriphilia is one of their most disturbing characteristics and another reason why I won't vote for them. 



			
				Armymedic said:
			
		

> You Sir, should cut off your nose, cause you can't see anything past it. There are 2 viable alternatives. Both the Consv and NDP have ideas how they can run this country better then the past goverments of the last 12 yrs. No wait, the last yr or so the NDP *have* been running the country...so the Liberals could hold gov't.



And you, sir, should refrain from making asinine opening statements which make broad assumptions based on very narrow information. I offered a response to the question of how I would vote, with a short explanation why. If you wished to pass judgement, you should have asked for clarification (as Cdn Blackshirt did) before making assumptions as to my abilities of perception. 

The NDP is not a viable alternative - they will never receive a majority, nor are many of their policies realistic. Their entire economic platform seems centered around a dislike for corporate tax cuts, which they proudly boast of having shot down. While I don't necessarily disagree with curbing corporate tax cuts, using it as a foundation for your platform is extremely weak - it's a one-trick pony. They'll "balance the budget" but don't say how, meanwhile they promise all sorts of increased social spending with no increase in taxes, either corporate or public. As much as I agree with some of their social policies such as affordable education, the NDP seems big on talk and short on substantiation. Combined with about 0% chance of being elected in my riding, the NDP is not, to me, a viable alternative. If I had to choose between the Cons or the NDP, I'd go NDP but that's not the situation we're in. 

As for the Cons, I already went over that.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Dec 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> 1. Military spending - they're promising a 1.2 (or 1.7, can't recall) billion dollar/year infusion for the next few years - that would be great, assuming they could actually do it. I believe they could and, though I'm not likely to vote for them, would look forward to it if they got into power.



Agree with you here.



> 2. Gun registry - It hasn't worked and it isn't likely to work. It was a waste of money. They want to scrap it and I'm inclined to agree, though it seems a waste now that the infrastructure/etc. has already been established.



Agree with you here as well - the general ideological approach of the Liberals to firearms bothers me (as I've established before), and I'm not even a recreational shooter (as I said, I have some inherited long-guns locked up).



> Disagree:  1. Foreign policy - by the sounds of things - namely making broad references to encouraging "democratic ideals" (complete with rhetoric) and policing "rogue states", the Conservative foreign policy sounds strikingly like that of the US, which I can't get behind in its current state.



Well, the Liberals haven't been much better.  I don't know what's worse, preening to the US or suckholeing France because your son-in-law is a major shareholder in their largest petroleum consortium - Bush or Desmarais, you lose either way, no?



> 2. Healthcare - I agree with some of the reforms put forward by the Conservatives but there's also an agenda, I believe, in the party to pursue two-tiered healthcare which I don't support.



The Liberals are the worst, but all parties really bother me with their ideas on Health Care because they all pander to the easy "more money" option.  I don't mind two-tiered health care as it already exists and it will help to show us how our antiquated Kim-Jong Il delivery system is no good.  I consider it an agent for positive change; as long as universal coverage is maintained (and a healthy balance is brought to management of health care) I could care less who is delivering it.



> 3. Criminal sentencing - The Conservatives want a "3 strikes" policy similar to the US where 3 violent offences earn you a dangerous offender tag (and thus an interminable sentence). On top of that, they want to have 14 year olds tried in adult court as a SOP for violent/repeat offenders - not something I agree with.



Why not.  I think we've established that jail isn't a deterrent, but that's not what tough sentencing needs to be for.  Bruce Monkhouse babysits these assholes everyday; listen to him.  We are not dealing with these people in the manner that we should.  Story the other day was about a guy with 42 counts that were all tied to sexual indecency and children moving to a community that didn't want him and was at risk to re-offend.  Guy with 15 prior counts of car-theft kills a family man while outrunning the cops in a stolen vehicle.  Karla Holmolka takes part in the brutal rape, torture and slaying of two teenage girls and we let her out?

C'mon.



> 4. Gay marriage - Harper wants to rescind the case and have parliament (under his government) legislate against the matter (IE outlaw it). I support gay marriage and I have no desire to see the parliament legislating against it, which it will undoubtedly do under a Conservative majority.



Agree with you here - definitely an eye-scab or whatever you mentioned earlier; this smells of pushing us into bed with these kinds of people.  Oh well, at least the Conservative Party will allow me to possess copious amounts of firearms so I can keep them off my property.



> 5. Fixed election dates - Why? The limit is 5 years and the ability of the PM to call an election anytime within that period allows for more frequent consultation of the electorate. Sure, the PM can call it when his ratings are high, but such are the advantages of the incumbency. It's not undemocratic.



Disagree; what's wrong with taking the politics out of election dates?  We have this in BC right now and it isn't that big of a deal, but if we are going to tool around with parliamentary democracy, it has got to be thourough and not just tinkering.  I want to see the Senate fixed, Quebec addressed, the nature of the PMO and the GG addressed.



> 6. Business - cutting corporate subsidies isn't necessarily a bad idea, but to which businesses is the question. By virtue of their need, small business needs adequate subsidies more. The cuts Harper's pushing aren't going to hurt big business, they're going to hurt the small ones.



Tax cuts don't bother me.



> 7. Universities - Harper's plan isn't to fund universities better, but to increase the number of loans available for students. Cut tuition costs and they won't need so many loans, won't accrue such staggering debts, etc. Instead, he's just offering more pogey.



Disagree - university isn't that expensive; I paid for it through working for the military (just as you are).  Canada's students seem to be a big pack of whiners.  Why should it be free (or near free)?  So they can sit around in undergrad for another couple years because they just like being a student and don't want to get out into the real world?  I remember taking part in varsity athletics in one of the countries largest universities and going to small colleges in the US and seeing how real funding makes a difference.  I'm all for making people earn their education - even if it be through a short period of service like the US GI Bill.



> 8. Ambassador to US - making him a cabinet member? Christ. Enough. Establishing ANOTHER bureaucracy just to deal with Canada/US stuff? We already have one and it's quite sufficient. The Conservative penchant for Ameriphilia is one of their most disturbing characteristics and another reason why I won't vote for them.



Agreed.  That's just silly.

Problem is, I could find a list just as long for the Liberals, and to me there are some even more disturbing implications.

I'm still hoping for a Conservative minority.  It will give them a shot at governing and yet keep them honest.


----------



## vangemeren (8 Dec 2005)

I'm just curious, how long ago did you attend university?


----------



## UberCree (8 Dec 2005)

University debt usually equals the price of a car by graduation.  Harldy an everwhelming amount of debt for an outstanding investment.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Dec 2005)

van Gemeren said:
			
		

> I'm just curious, how long ago did you attend university?



Two years ago.



			
				UberCree said:
			
		

> University debt usually equals the price of a car by graduation.   Harldy an everwhelming amount of debt for an outstanding investment.



Exactly.  Expecting everybody else to foot your university bill is just another example of how people in this country wish to abrogate all personal responsibility to somebody else.


----------



## vangemeren (8 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Exactly.  Expecting everybody else to foot your university bill is just another example of how people in this country wish to abrogate all personal responsibility to somebody else.



I don't expect anyone to give someone else the responsibility to pay my bills. It's just that they are rising faster than inflation. If they kept pace with inflation that would be fine.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/030812/d030812a.htm


----------



## Blue Max (8 Dec 2005)

I just read today that Svend Robinson, has unanimously accepted the NDP nomination for Vancouver center and will try to take the seat away from Liberal quack, Hedy Fry.  WTF? 

How is it that anyone that has been charged with stealing a $65,000 dollar ring, and got off VERY LIGHTLY (home arrest), can run for a seat as a member of parliament.  :

How is it that some one with a criminal record would be allowed to sit and pass laws with other members  (maybe only the PM and Gov-Gen are known as Right Honourable??) that are referred to as "Right Honorable..."?  WTF? ???

This is further indication of the moral watering down of our political conscience. It seems to be Ok to be a white collar criminal in Canada as long as you don't get caught. And if you do get caught you had better be a politician, call a news conference and cry loudly at the camera's while telling all that it was an honest mistake, perpetuated by your emotional state in trying to marry your gay lover. 
 :rage:  :threat: :fifty:


----------



## Slim (8 Dec 2005)

> How is it that anyone that has been charged with stealing a $65,000 dollar ring, and got off VERY LIGHTLY (home arrest), can run for a seat as a member of parliament.



There is something that is really very wrond with our country today. When things like the above are allowed to happen.

Next to the Gomery Report its just a trifle.

Personally I'm disgusted with the Liberal party.

They're thieves.

Its time they were caled on it.

Slim


----------



## Infanteer (8 Dec 2005)

Blue Max said:
			
		

> (maybe only the PM and Gov-Gen are known as Right Honourable??)



That title is reserved for members of the Queen's Privy Council in Canada.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Dec 2005)

>I'm just curious, how long ago did you attend university?

I attended 1982-87. Out of curiosity, I looked at the numbers recommended these days for tuitions, fees, residence, etc at my old alma mater and compared what they were relative to the jobs I had then, and what they would be relative to what those jobs would pay now (including, for example, reserve private/corporal pay).

In relative terms, I'd be about the same, or perhaps even slightly better off, now.   How's that for irony?   (I didn't apply for or receive any student loans.)

[Add to drive the point home: estimated cost for a year is about 2.5-2.7 times what it was then.  The daily rate for Private Basic is 2.6 times what it was then, and one doesn't have to stay at Private Basic for long. Most, but not all, of the summer work I found was not with the reserve - most paid better, one paid less.  The secret to graduating debt-free - or nearly so - is the same as it was then: work.]


----------



## Monsoon (8 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> That title is reserved for members of the Queen's Privy Council in Canada.


Actually, members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada (i.e. sitting and former cabinet ministers and a few others) are styled "The Honourable".  "The Right Honourable" is reserved for Governors General, Prime Ministers or Chief Justices and some very rare exceptions.  Backbench MPs get nothing.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Dec 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Actually, members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada (i.e. sitting and former cabinet ministers and a few others) are styled "The Honourable".   "The Right Honourable" is reserved for Governors General, Prime Ministers or Chief Justices and some very rare exceptions.   Backbench MPs get nothing.



Ahh, that's the ticket.  Thanks for the correction.


----------



## AoD71 (8 Dec 2005)

I was thinking of voting Liberal in the next election (my first opportunity to vote) with their recent support of our military. But this Handgun ban idea is so rediculus that it nearly gives me a headache. Looks like the Conservatives are going to have a nice boost in votes this time around.


----------



## Old Ranger (8 Dec 2005)

When are the Directing Staff going to run?

And is their going to be a new Digital Green Party?

Ben


----------



## Slim (8 Dec 2005)

It seems as though the Liberals have seriously stepped on their John-Thomases. Hopefully the Conservatives can use this chunk of Lib stupidity to their advantage and win the election!

Canada really needs a new govt this time around!


----------



## Old Ranger (8 Dec 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Canada really needs a new govt this time around!



So, are you going to start a "Digital Green" or "Maroon" Party? ;D


----------



## Slim (8 Dec 2005)

Old Ranger said:
			
		

> So, are you going to start a "Digital Green" or "Maroon" Party? ;D



Not even my frinds listen to me, never mind other ordinary people! 

I'd sure support one though


----------



## Monsoon (9 Dec 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> It seems as though the Liberals have seriously stepped on their John-Thomases. Hopefully the Conservatives can use this chunk of Lib stupidity to their advantage and win the election!


Actually, whether you like it or not, the Liberals have just won the election (albeit with a minority).  See you in 2007, lads.


----------



## redleafjumper (9 Dec 2005)

Don't count on it.  It's too early to gloat yet, Liberal.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Dec 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> See you in 2007, lads.



I'm wondering if Canadians will be up to another election in 2007.  Let's see how low voter turnout is for this one (since we set the record last time....)


----------



## vangemeren (9 Dec 2005)

I'm going to wait to choose, we still have 6 weeks left.

Anyways I'm studying for a final today and this scenario crossed my tired mind and I thought I would throw it out there:

Martin wins the next election; party upset and cans him. A possible rising star takes the leadership, (Ignatieff) and calls an election. Seen as a new charismatic fresh face (not laden down by any major scandals), election weary voters decide to elect Liberal majority on his popularity.

(this scenario is loosely similar to another time in Canadian political history, can you guess when?)


Like I said, I'm not going to commit to one party or another until I get advanced polling dates for my riding (good ol' Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke)


----------



## Monsoon (9 Dec 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> You'll have to swallow that typical arrogant Liberal pride of yours on the 23rd, mark my words. The election isn't over yet.


Not arrogance, just a hunch.  Banning handguns is a polarizing issue, but the majority of those opposed to it who care enough to make it a voting issue are already unlikely to vote Liberal because of the gun registry.  It is an issue that speaks to a lot of swing voters in the urban ridings, and it looks like an issue that will get out the vote in numbers enough that the Liberals will be able to get a plurality of votes in a plurality of ridings.  The Conservatives have already blown their load by announcing the GST cut in the opening days of the campaign and now have to keep the message fresh for the next month and a half.  Short of promising the Second Coming, I don't think the Conservatives wil be able to announce anything to top this.  And to make things even better for the Liberals, Gomery has completely fallen off the agenda now that the "GST cut vs. gun control" debate has been framed around the election.  From a strategy viewpoint, it was a brilliant move.

Now if they promised to ban handguns while simultaneously ending the registry on long guns, they'd probably win a majority.


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Dec 2005)

Well, if the GST gets cut, we can all afford to buy more guns.  Win, win if the cons get in..... hey, that's just downright poetic, man.


----------



## COBRA-6 (10 Dec 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Well, if the GST gets cut, we can all afford to buy more guns.



I can only dream...


----------



## ChopperHead (10 Dec 2005)

well im not old enough to vote for another yet but if I could Id be voting conservative.
I however don't think they will win the election if they do it will be very close, and I don't they will win because people are voting "for" them more so against the Liberals. Also I figure many former liberals will be voting NDP so that helps to lower Liberal votes also. It's really up in the air right now.

The Torys biggest problem right now id have to say is their leader. People just don't like Steven Harper plain and simple. The man is just boring. If you pay attention to politcs then you notic when Paul Martin gives a speach or Duceppe give a speech they get right into it and are cheering and whatever. A harper speech is just dull, he shows no emotion what so ever he basicaly just reads a piece of paper in the the same tone of voice for 20 min take a couple questions and leaves.I don't know but it just seems like doesnt want to be there.


----------



## Cliff (10 Dec 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> Better a boring PM then a thief.



In my view, I think they're all thieves. Some are just better = than others.


----------



## Slim (10 Dec 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Actually, whether you like it or not, the Liberals have just won the election (albeit with a minority).   See you in 2007, lads.
> 
> Canada really needes a new govt!



Sorry, you forgot the last part of my post 

Down with Libs and their fibs!


----------



## RangerRay (10 Dec 2005)

ChopperHead said:
			
		

> The man is just boring. If you pay attention to politcs then you notic when Paul Martin gives a speach or Duceppe give a speech they get right into it and are cheering and whatever. A harper speech is just dull, he shows no emotion what so ever he basicaly just reads a piece of paper in the the same tone of voice for 20 min take a couple questions and leaves.



You should watch CPAC which shows entire speeches, rather than just the 5 second clips that the CBC wants you to see.

You would see that Harper is passionate, knows what he is talking about, and even has a sense of humour.  He answers reporters questions directly without trying to straddle a fence.

You would also see the dithering that is Dithers.  "Umm...I...er...ah...now let me be very clear...er...uh...this is a very, very important issue...uh...I LOVE CANADA!"


----------



## silentbutdeadly (10 Dec 2005)

See thats the problem! maybe he is boring, but i think boring and getting to the issues is what we need. Not "really into his speech"and takes money from us and scandal! At least he is doing something i.e 5% GST, $1200 per yr for children till the age of six. What have the Dictator done hmmmm gun ban! thats all they can come up with Gun ban! hahaha


----------



## ChopperHead (10 Dec 2005)

Actually I do watch cpac. Is still find him boring though, alot of people do. Compared to Paul Martins speeches Harpers are usually quite tame and uneventful. Like right after the Gorenment fell and the leader had their speeches to their party members. Paul Martin had his party shouting and cheering and raising their arms etc you just dont see stuff like that from the conservatives and I think that this is very important if they plan on attracting much of the youth vote. they have to make things exciting.

Im not saying i dont support his ideas and his policys though don't get me wrong just they need to be more upbeat and lively and get people involved because if you dont then the message gets lost because people arent paying attention.


----------



## winchable (10 Dec 2005)

I think perhaps if they shake shiny metal objects and make loud whooping noises, they would have as good a chance of attracting the youth vote.
I prefer Harper's speaking to most politicians, I've never liked Paul Martin's. That is of course a very subjective topic though.

They just looked like assholes cheering the fall of their own government, imo


----------



## silentbutdeadly (10 Dec 2005)

hahah no sh*t! they were cheering for what? everyone in the commons doesn't think you can do the job! yeah woooo hoooo!


----------



## RangerRay (10 Dec 2005)

Well, we in British Columbia have had our share of flamboyant prime ministers.  Bill Vander Zalm and Glen Clark come to mind.  They were also probably our worst.

Since 2001, we've had a pretty boring guy (Gordon Campbell) running the province, and he's managed to turn this province around economically.

As for that Liberal "pep rally" after their government fell...it was truly a nauseating experience to behold.  It is said that "wrapping oneself with the flag is the last resort of a scoundrel" or something to that effect...


----------



## Slim (10 Dec 2005)

They (the Liberals) seem to be about as out-of-tune with the nation as its possible to be.

Martin aught to get a new set of handlers as the ones he has now must all be from Salt Spring Island or some other such layed back place...


----------



## ChopperHead (10 Dec 2005)

lol ya I know it was stupid to be cheering that you just lost the confidence of the country but my point was that the Paul Martin gets right into his speeches and gets people involved and I think that works alot better then just standing there reading a piece of paper. If you want to get youth out to vote and vote for you then you have to get them involved and excited with the polical party and procceses in gerneral.


----------



## Slim (10 Dec 2005)

ChopperHead said:
			
		

> lol ya I know it was stupid to be cheering that you just lost the confidence of the country but my point was that the Paul Martin gets right into his speeches and gets people involved and I think that works alot better then just standing there reading a piece of paper.



So do Mr Rogers, MR Dressup and the Ringmaster at the average circus...

The problem is that there's nothing of substance behind any of them, just smoke and mirrors!

Same with the Libs under martin.


----------



## Kat Stevens (10 Dec 2005)

People seemed to really get into Hitler's speeches too, judging from the newsreels.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Dec 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> They (the Liberals) seem to be about as out-of-tune with the nation as its possible to be.



Normally I agree with you, Slim, but given the fact that a party of known thieves and incompetents is still ahead in the polls and likely to squeeze out one more minority (despite what we would like), I wonder just who is out of tune with what here? Why this should be is a very complex subject (saying it is because the 38% of Canadian who bother to vote are idiots just doesn't explain it).


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (11 Dec 2005)

I wonder what percentage of those 38% are in the military...
and what % of military personnell actually vote?


----------



## Slim (11 Dec 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Normally I agree with you, Slim, but given the fact that a party of known thieves and incompetents is still ahead in the polls and likely to squeeze out one more minority (despite what we would like), I wonder just who is out of tune with what here? Why this should be is a very complex subject (saying it is because the 38% of Canadian who bother to vote are idiots just doesn't explain it).



I think Churchill said it best when he said; 
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Dec 2005)

> Normally I agree with you, Slim, but given the fact that a party of known thieves and incompetents is still ahead in the polls and likely to squeeze out one more minority (despite what we would like), I wonder just who is out of tune with what here?



Exactly what runs through my head every time I think about politics.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (12 Dec 2005)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> Exactly what runs through my head every time I think about politics.



See theres your problem right there. I try not to think about Politics too much, it hurts...


----------



## Glorified Ape (12 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Well, the Liberals haven't been much better.   I don't know what's worse, preening to the US or suckholeing France because your son-in-law is a major shareholder in their largest petroleum consortium - Bush or Desmarais, you lose either way, no?



I look at which approach is likeliest to get myself and other CF members killed over idiotic, political non-sequiturs and then pick the other one. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against war when it's necessary, I'd just rather not get my stomach spilled all over the ground because some idiot in Ottawa with a fetish for all things south of the 49th parallel decided solidarity with idiots was more important than sensical policy... call me selfish, but that's my view. 



> The Liberals are the worst, but all parties really bother me with their ideas on Health Care because they all pander to the easy "more money" option.   I don't mind two-tiered health care as it already exists and it will help to show us how our antiquated Kim-Jong Il delivery system is no good.   I consider it an agent for positive change; as long as universal coverage is maintained (and a healthy balance is brought to management of health care) I could care less who is delivering it.



The problem, as I see it, is that the public system would suffer. I agree our system needs serious reforms, but I suspect the introduction of a private tier would only drive it further into the ground. 



> Why not.   I think we've established that jail isn't a deterrent, but that's not what tough sentencing needs to be for.   Bruce Monkhouse babysits these assholes everyday; listen to him.   We are not dealing with these people in the manner that we should.   Story the other day was about a guy with 42 counts that were all tied to sexual indecency and children moving to a community that didn't want him and was at risk to re-offend.   Guy with 15 prior counts of car-theft kills a family man while outrunning the cops in a stolen vehicle.   Karla Holmolka takes part in the brutal rape, torture and slaying of two teenage girls and we let her out?



Firstly, because I don't believe dangerous offender status is something that should be handed out on a standardized basis, the ad-hoc/individualized consideration that's currently in place seems more appropriate, given the extremity of the repercussions of such a label. As for 14 year olds in adult court, I don't see how giving a kid an adult record and sentence for juvenile offences before he can even drive a car is going to help things - all you're doing is ensuring the kid never snaps out of it by dropping a yoke around his neck that will follow him for the rest of his life. If it's a serious offence like murder or rape, fine, but doing it over a fistfights (read: violent offence) is idiotic. Teenagers will fight, especially the male ones, and having laws which ignore this reality, as well as idiotic zero-tolerance policies in schools, does nothing but make sure teenage boys are saddled with records and prison/juvie time for stuff they would have received a stern talking-to about 30 years ago. 



> Agree with you here - definitely an eye-scab or whatever you mentioned earlier; this smells of pushing us into bed with these kinds of people.   Oh well, at least the Conservative Party will allow me to possess copious amounts of firearms so I can keep them off my property.



Indeed, and maybe we'll be so lucky as to have religious decrees posted all around our government buildings. Perhaps they'll be good enough to outlaw abortion and, if we dare to dream, outlaw gay people! Then maybe we can get some of that sweet sweet lynching I've heard was so popular down south... just imagine - we could have our very own pogroms. Harper seems like an open-minded guy - maybe he'll take a few pointers from 'down under' and get us some of that Muslim-free immigration policy that Wes is saying has become so popular with the Aussies.  :

If I want the neo-Na..er... National Citizens Coalition as my PM's think-tank, I'll vote Harper. But until I get the call from Ghandi that flying pigs have been spotted over a frozen hell, I'll stay away from old Hit...um... Harper. 



> Disagree; what's wrong with taking the politics out of election dates?   We have this in BC right now and it isn't that big of a deal, but if we are going to tool around with parliamentary democracy, it has got to be thourough and not just tinkering.   I want to see the Senate fixed, Quebec addressed, the nature of the PMO and the GG addressed.



Why mess with what ain't broke? Flexible dates are just that - flexible. It's one of the advantages of incumbency, there's nothing unfair about it. While we're at it, why don't we remove the unfair "advantage" of executive addresses to the public? As for the senate, I agree to some extent. I don't mind its appointed status so much, but the issue of western representation needs to be addressed ASAP. How exactly would we go about "addressing" Quebec? What are your issues with the PMO and GG?



> Tax cuts don't bother me.



It's corporate subsidies he wants to cut, not taxes. I don't disagree universally with reducing corporate subsidies, but one has to factor in small businesses. Cutting subsidies to IBM or DuPont is one thing, cutting them to small businesses which may actually need them is another. 



> Disagree - university isn't that expensive; I paid for it through working for the military (just as you are).   Canada's students seem to be a big pack of whiners.   Why should it be free (or near free)?



See, where you ask "why", I ask "why not"? I guess it's a fundamental difference between commie bastards like me and heartless neo-cons like you. ;D I think that the growing importance (indeed, necessity) of university for an increasing number of jobs is one reason why it should be cheap. I'm not saying free, necessarily, but affordable to the overwhelming majority of the populous. It's not just tuition that has to be factored into the equation, it's also the living expenses vs. time available to work. An ex-girlfriend of mine went to Queen's poli-sci (undergrad) on OSAP and worked her arse off, both in and out of school, through the entirety of her degree. Now she's saddled with god knows how many tens of thousands of dollars in student debt which it will take her years upon years to pay off. A well-educated populous is in the best interests of society. 



> So they can sit around in undergrad for another couple years because they just like being a student and don't want to get out into the real world? I remember taking part in varsity athletics in one of the countries largest universities and going to small colleges in the US and seeing how real funding makes a difference.   I'm all for making people earn their education - even if it be through a short period of service like the US GI Bill.



As much as I find university badminton to be enthralling in the extreme, I don't think it's a legitimate argument for more expensive higher education. As for "earning their education", I agree - academically. Should people have to "earn" their primary and secondary educations? Maybe we should privatize the whole education system, that way we can have a well-educated bourgeoisie and an illiterate, servile proletariat.   Hyperbole, I know. 

As for "sitting around in undergrad", most schools have a maximum time allotment for an undergrad degree - 4 years generally, methinks. If university is just another way to delay "get[ing] out into the real world" (as you put it), why did you go?



> Agreed.   That's just silly.



Indeed, and scary when one takes into account the degree of Ameriphilia that must plague the Conservative Party's policy makers to drive them to such pathetic extremes of kowtowing.  



> Problem is, I could find a list just as long for the Liberals, and to me there are some even more disturbing implications.



That may be, but until I they surpass the Cons, in my mind, they'll continue to be my preference. 



> I'm still hoping for a Conservative minority.   It will give them a shot at governing and yet keep them honest.



Bah, government will never be honest. If a government was honest, it wouldn't last the month. People are largely idiots when it comes to government and if they were told all that needed to be done, and was done, to keep the country running and the government operating, they'd cry bloody murder and riot in the streets. Then when the government actually operated according to what the majority thought was "right", things would be even worse than before and people would still be blaming the government. 

By the way, you ARE going infantry officer, no?


----------



## Infanteer (12 Dec 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I look at which approach is likeliest to get myself and other CF members killed over idiotic, political non-sequiturs and then pick the other one.



You obviously haven't talked to a Canadian soldier deployed on a UN mission; remember it is the Liberals and the NDP who love the "peacekeeping ideology" - which essentially amounts to be deployed to an equally dangerous area but with less equipment and lame ROE's....

As for your other stuff, you're wrong because I'm right.


----------



## paracowboy (12 Dec 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> By the way, you ARE going infantry officer, no?


yes, he is. And I find it comforting to think that for every one young officer like you coming into our system, we get three like him.


----------



## Glorified Ape (12 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> You obviously haven't talked to a Canadian soldier deployed on a UN mission; remember it is the Liberals and the NDP who love the "peacekeeping ideology" - which essentially amounts to be deployed to an equally dangerous area but with less equipment and lame ROE's....



You're ignoring the mandate and legality aspects. I'm with you as far as the failing of the ideology, but I wouldn't classify it as a political non-sequitur. I'd also wager, judging from casualty rates, that peacekeeping's less dangerous than, say, Iraq (which is what I was referring to). 



> As for your other stuff, you're wrong because I'm right.



Dammit, you always cut to the core of me. ;D






			
				paracowboy said:
			
		

> yes, he is. And I find it comforting to think that for every one young officer like you coming into our system, we get three like him.



Care to elaborate? I thought about responding in kind, but decided I'd take my own advice and be absolutely sure of what it is you're saying before replying.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Dec 2005)

> author=Glorified Ape link=topic=36968/post-307810#msg307810 date=1134401119]
> You're ignoring the mandate and legality aspects. I'm with you as far as the failing of the ideology, but I wouldn't classify it as a political non-sequitur. I'd also wager, judging from casualty rates, that peacekeeping's less dangerous than, say, Iraq (which is what I was referring to).



If we judge deployments on the amount of danger or casualties we face, then the correct solution is simply never to go. I would preffer to judge based on results. In the case of the Balkans, the UN intervention from @1990-95 was totally ineffective, the Serbs and Croats could pretty much drive over the UN "Peacekeepers" whenever they got in the way of creating a "Greater Serbia" or "Greater Croatia", or tried to interfere with the rampant "Ethnic Cleansing" (known in the past as "The Final Solution"). The US led NATO intervention in the 1995 period applied enough military pressure to end the wars, and at least stabilize the situation to a cold peace (which hadn't change too much when I was there in 2003).

In most cases where there is/was a UN mandate and an American intervention (such as the Tsunami, to get away from "kinetic " military effects for a moment), the "results" collumn is always filled on the American side. Given the historical reality, I would think very long and hard before commiting myself to putting blood and treasure on the line in support of an ineffective and ineffectual organization simply on the basis of a dubious "mandate and legality". Sovereign nations exist in a state of nature, regardless of what we might wish, so if a party wants to articulate a foreign policy for my consideration, they had better take the real world into account.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Dec 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> People are largely idiots



Sounds like a Liberal to me.


----------



## Glorified Ape (12 Dec 2005)

> If we judge deployments on the amount of danger or casualties we face, then the correct solution is simply never to go. I would preffer to judge based on results. In the case of the Balkans, the UN intervention from @1990-95 was totally ineffective, the Serbs and Croats could pretty much drive over the UN "Peacekeepers" whenever they got in the way of creating a "Greater Serbia" or "Greater Croatia", or tried to interfere with the rampant "Ethnic Cleansing" (known in the past as "The Final Solution"). The US led NATO intervention in the 1995 period applied enough military pressure to end the wars, and at least stabilize the situation to a cold peace (which hadn't change too much when I was there in 200
> In most cases where there is/was a UN mandate and an American intervention (such as the Tsunami, to get away from "kinetic " military effects for a moment), the "results" collumn is always filled on the American side. Given the historical reality, I would think very long and hard before commiting myself to putting blood and treasure on the line in support of an ineffective and ineffectual organization simply on the basis of a dubious "mandate and legality". Sovereign nations exist in a state of nature, regardless of what we might wish, so if a party wants to articulate a foreign policy for my consideration, they had better take the real world into account.



I guess you're not much for the liberal institutionalist perspective, eh? I'm not arguing that we shouldn't deploy, but picking our battles is important, especially when our military is as small as it is. Whether you, I, or Joe Schmoe off the street likes it or not, foreign policy has to factor other politics than realpolitik. The kind of "results" that Iraq has generated aren't the kind I think we should be aiming for - dead Canadians, political suicide, and worsened relations with the Muslim world (and elsewhere) aren't what we need. 

There was just cause for Afghanistan and Kosovo but the justifications for Iraq are evaporating as quickly as the Bush administration can manufacture them. If our foreign policy is going to be directed, to whatever degree, at the "war on terrorism", then perception is as important as what you call "results". After all, the whole "hearts and minds" aspect of counter-insurgency kind of dries up when you're busy bludgeoning the people whose hearts and minds you're trying to win and enraging their peers. This is doubly true when the stated justifications for such bludgeoning are so weak they need replacement every couple of months. I'm not saying action is wrong, but that it has to be properly aimed. Misdirected action, in relation to the war on terror, is just as dangerous, if not moreso, than having no action at all. 



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Sounds like a Liberal to me.



You quoted out of context. I said that when it comes to government, people are largely idiots. That's where you get suggestions like electing the bureaucracy or supreme court justices (like the National Citizen's Coalition is after). I'm not saying people aren't intelligent, but that they seem woefully illusioned about government.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Dec 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I guess you're not much for the liberal institutionalist perspective, eh? I'm not arguing that we shouldn't deploy, but picking our battles is important, especially when our military is as small as it is. Whether you, I, or Joe Schmoe off the street likes it or not, foreign policy has to factor other politics than realpolitik. The kind of "results" that Iraq has generated aren't the kind I think we should be aiming for - dead Canadians, political suicide, and worsened relations with the Muslim world (and elsewhere) aren't what we need.
> 
> There was just cause for Afghanistan and Kosovo but the justifications for Iraq are evaporating as quickly as the Bush administration can manufacture them. If our foreign policy is going to be directed, to whatever degree, at the "war on terrorism", then perception is as important as what you call "results". After all, the whole "hearts and minds" aspect of counter-insurgency kind of dries up when you're busy bludgeoning the people whose hearts and minds you're trying to win and enraging their peers. This is doubly true when the stated justifications for such bludgeoning are so weak they need replacement every couple of months. I'm not saying action is wrong, but that it has to be properly aimed. Misdirected action, in relation to the war on terror, is just as dangerous, if not moreso, than having no action at all.



I agree with Art in general; don't judge the campaign by its risk.   Believe it or not, our mission to Afghanistan probably has the same effect of "dead Canadians" and "worsened relations with Muslims" as Iraq does considering that the militant Islam (and the mass who listen to them) aren't too keen on state borders.   Whether we are in Kabul, Khartoum, or Baghdad, we are in _Dar al-Islam_ as far as they are concerned.   You're seeing this now with all the incidents in the last month now that Canada is at the center of the insurgency in Afghanistan.

As well, as I've said before, the "moral" side of the argument is weak.   Don't view Iraq apart from the general campaign against the Islamic Insurgency that has been going on for quite some time now.   The action wasn't unilateral by any sense of the word (we concluded that here), the target was in a strategically important region for the war, and Saddam was just a bad guy in general (you'd have to be a fool to deny that he doesn't belong in jail).   Now, when it comes to the "strategic" dimension, I find more cause for complaint.   Was unleashing the forces which were clearly unanticipated at this point in time a good thing for the war?   Was it taking the "eye off the ball" strategically?   That remains to be seen, although I still have my reservations.

I've always said that if the West wanted something of the scale and scope of Iraq, with all its political difficulties and its bloody insurgency, that we should have invaded Pakistan.   Musharaff is a dictator who can barely keep the reigns.   By invading Pakistan, we can hit the Taliban/AQ forces from the rear and finally hit the real base of Al Qa'ida's forces.   We can seize the "Islamic nukes" which are one car-bomb away from falling into Islamist hands.   We would have the support of India (can you imagine Western forces being aided by a 500,000 man Indian force?).   And, best of all, we can take one of the 3 key centers of Islamic Insurgencies "center of gravity" (the other 2 being Saudi Arabia and Egypt).     Saddam?   We should have bought him off and brought him back onto our team (like he was in the 80s).   He had just enough reason to dislike the jihadists as we do and there is no compulsion against dealing with dictators and tyrants in this war (look at some of our current "allies").   Ah well, that's just the _realpolitik_ in me....



> You quoted out of context. I said that when it comes to government, people are largely idiots. That's where you get suggestions like electing the bureaucracy or supreme court justices (like the National Citizen's Coalition is after). I'm not saying people aren't intelligent, but that they seem woefully illusioned about government.



I think that is generally the case - there is a reason that we have Representative Democracy, as much as we love to malign our representatives.


----------



## Glorified Ape (13 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I agree with Art in general; don't judge the campaign by its risk.   Believe it or not, our mission to Afghanistan probably has the same effect of "dead Canadians" and "worsened relations with Muslims" as Iraq does considering that the militant Islam (and the mass who listen to them) aren't too keen on state borders.   Whether we are in Kabul, Khartoum, or Baghdad, we are in _Dar al-Islam_ as far as they are concerned.   You're seeing this now with all the incidents in the last month now that Canada is at the center of the insurgency in Afghanistan.



I'm not judging the campaign by its risk but by its justifiability and payoff potential. Even from a realpolitik perspective, Iraq made little sense. I'd say its done more damage to Western security than Afghanistan, if only (and not only) because it's so bloody public and prolonged. If it can't even be sold to Western populations convincingly, imagine the depot of ammo it provides the insurgency (international, not just Iraqi). Don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to make moral arguments against the war in Iraq - it's been done to death by both sides - all I'm saying is that realist foreign policies are one thing when they can be realised practically in domestic and international political fora; it's entirely another thing when neither the domestic nor international fronts are solid. 

Of course, that's assuming that without Iraq, Afghanistan would have remained the relatively room-temperature potato its turned out to be. 



> As well, as I've said before, the "moral" side of the argument is weak.   Don't view Iraq apart from the general campaign against the Islamic Insurgency that has been going on for quite some time now.   The action wasn't unilateral by any sense of the word (we concluded that here), the target was in a strategically important region for the war, and Saddam was just a bad guy in general (you'd have to be a fool to deny that he doesn't belong in jail).



You'll get no moral debates from me here, while we could bludgeon the morality of Iraq into atoms it wouldn't achieve much but to waste Mike's bandwidth. 



> Now, when it comes to the "strategic" dimension, I find more cause for complaint.   Was unleashing the forces which were clearly unanticipated at this point in time a good thing for the war?   Was it taking the "eye off the ball" strategically?   That remains to be seen, although I still have my reservations.



You likely know more about this than I, given your propensity for papers and hundred-thousand-page readings on the topic, but I'm of the tentative belief that it was premature and largely unwise. Afghanistan was a necessary and, insurgency wise, logical step. The political fallout from it seems to be minimal, partially (I would suspect) because it could be convincingly sold to the domestic and international fora in the wake of 9/11. There was a clear link between the Taliban and AQ/OBL, drawing the lines for the public wasn't difficult, and new excuses didn't need to be thought up every month or so. Meanwhile, it disrupted what served as a major base of operations for the insurgency and the resident population seems, superficially, to be far less resistant and accepting than that of Iraq. I think Iraq pushed the political "capital" (god I hate that cliche, but it's apt) way too far into the red and did no favours for the strategic end insofar as its done virtually nothing, in my estimation, to further the political end which seems to be poorly articulated in whatever estimate (if any) exists for the international counter-insurgency campaign. Militarily, its succeeded in generating a quagmire in which to waste forces, money, and time with little or no discernable advantage. 



> I've always said that if the West wanted something of the scale and scope of Iraq, with all its political difficulties and its bloody insurgency, that we should have invaded Pakistan.   Musharaff is a dictator who can barely keep the reigns.   By invading Pakistan, we can hit the Taliban/AQ forces from the rear and finally hit the real base of Al Qa'ida's forces.   We can seize the "Islamic nukes" which are one car-bomb away from falling into Islamist hands.   We would have the support of India (can you imagine Western forces being aided by a 500,000 man Indian force?).   And, best of all, we can take one of the 3 key centers of Islamic Insurgencies "center of gravity" (the other 2 being Saudi Arabia and Egypt).     Saddam?   We should have bought him off and brought him back onto our team (like he was in the 80s).   He had just enough reason to dislike the jihadists as we do and there is no compulsion against dealing with dictators and tyrants in this war (look at some of our current "allies").   Ah well, that's just the _realpolitik_ in me....



I'm not sure there's ever been any compulsion against dealing with dictators and tyrants. As for Pakistan, do you think the political fallout (which would likely be far worse than Iraq, methinks) would be outweighed by the strategic gain? Especially when you factor strategic success' dependency on realisation of the political end?

I think we're hijacking this thread....  :-\



> I think that is generally the case - there is a reason that we have Representative Democracy, as much as we love to malign our representatives.



Indeed - and a professional bureaucracy. I'm not anti-democratic, I just feel that the number of issues that the public is really qualified to deal with (through election, etc) is limited - myself included.


----------



## RangerRay (13 Dec 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Indeed, and maybe we'll be so lucky as to have religious decrees posted all around our government buildings. Perhaps they'll be good enough to outlaw abortion and, if we dare to dream, outlaw gay people! Then maybe we can get some of that sweet sweet lynching I've heard was so popular down south... just imagine - we could have our very own pogroms. Harper seems like an open-minded guy - maybe he'll take a few pointers from 'down under' and get us some of that Muslim-free immigration policy that Wes is saying has become so popular with the Aussies.   :
> 
> If I want the neo-Na..er... National Citizens Coalition as my PM's think-tank, I'll vote Harper. But until I get the call from Ghandi that flying pigs have been spotted over a frozen hell, I'll stay away from old Hit...um... Harper.



Please, can we leave science-fiction out of this...?


----------



## Glorified Ape (13 Dec 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >I think that the growing importance (indeed, necessity) of university for an increasing number of jobs is one reason why it should be cheap.
> 
> What percentage of people do you think merit a university education?  Why do you think they should be subsidized by the percentage who are not going to enjoy the lifestyle that higher education and higher incomes tend to promote?



I think that anyone who wants one and has the necessary requisites for entry should be able to get a university education. As I said, I'm not saying university should be free, just affordable. I'm not arguing that Canadian universities are presently exhorbitantly expensive, but a national tuition average closer to that of Quebec resident tuition would be preferable to me. 

As for why they should be subsidized, Calvin made a decent case. Having an educated populous is in the interests of the country and it pays off when the higher incomes that generally accompany degrees are taxed. 



			
				RangerRay said:
			
		

> Please, can we leave science-fiction out of this...?



Yeah, that was a ranting sarcastic overstatement on my part, but I was serious about the National Citizen's Coalition. 



			
				Caesar said:
			
		

> Poor wording on my part. As with anything in Economics, you can find diverging opinions on almost any aspect of economics from equally qualified sources. My statement is based on the principles of economics from my first year Econ class. Unfortunately, that was 9 years ago, so my memory has failed re:reference. I suspect however, that you will be hard pressed to find a highly regarded economist that advocates personal subsidies in favor of a free market. BTW, I was referring to PERSONAL subsidies, not industry. Second, there are times when temporary subsidies (personal) can be justified economically, but these are the exception, not the rule. University tuition freezes and personal 'no strigs' subsidies are not one of them, IMHO.



If you consider education a public good, subsidy only makes sense. It's comparable with any other public good in that sense. I'm not advocating individualized subsidies, just the maintenance of a low tuition ceiling on the higher education industry through sector-wide subsidy. 



> As long as that's temporary, okey-dokey, but that wasn't the original argument. Permanent subsidies lose thier impact over time. Once a person, or an indusrty, begins to rely on them as part of their salary/revenue, it stops being an investment, and becomes welfare.



That's the nature of a public good. If it was the widget export industry, I'd agree, as it's an economic sector outside the purview of public goods principles.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Dec 2005)

Can we change people's minds on subsidies? If we could, then the Conservatives would have gotten far more traction with their tax cutting proposals and shifting money from government service delivery back to the taxpayer.

This isn't to say we shouldn't try, (subsidies are indeed a bad thing from almost any economic point of view, representing mis or mal allocated resources and lost opportunity costs, the money to subsidize comes at the expense of someone else, no matter how you slice it) but this old Persian story should prepare us for the task at hand:



> Nasrudin was caught in the act and sentenced to die. Hauled up before the king, he was asked by the Royal Presence: "Is there any reason at all why I shouldn't have your head off right now?" To which he replied: "Oh, King, live forever! Know that I, the mullah Nasrudin, am the greatest teacher in your kingdom, and it would surely be a waste to kill such a great teacher. So skilled am I that I could even teach your favorite horse to sing, given a year to work on it." The king was amused, and said: "Very well then, you move into the stable immediately, and if the horse isn't singing a year from now, we'll think of something interesting to do with you."
> 
> As he was returning to his cell to pick up his spare rags, his cellmate remonstrated with him: "Now that was really stupid. You know you can't teach that horse to sing, no matter how long you try."
> 
> ...


----------



## Monsoon (13 Dec 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Of course they're not slaves, that's why they're paid. If they don't like the wage, they are free to go elsewhere. The market, not the employer, and certainly not the employee, should dictate wages.


And if that means that everyone goes to work in the subsidized shipyards in Europe and the US, we just have to accept that as a fact of life and write it off as part of the cost of living in a libertarian paradise?  What nonsense.



> That is completely flawed logic, and you didn't answer my question: If it weren't for the permanant subsidy, would the industry colapse?


Case in point, Canada has no shipbuilding subsidy (uniquely in the developed world) and consequently has the smallest shipbuilding industry of any G8 nation.  So the answer is "Yes, because everyone else is subsidizing their industry".



> Oh, so when the numbers work in your favor, that's fine, but when you're shown to be completely off your gourd, the economies are not integrated, and I gotta wait 50 years to prove it? Nice.


I'm glad to see you agree that there's no rebuttal to that point.  That's because the argument is just.



> The US does not subsidize students. Quit refering to state subsidies for Universities or Government loans to students. Neither is a subsidy of for students. Keep in mind that Universities are not merely learning institutions, evidenced by the fact that Profs are generally graded on how much they publish and the quality of their research, not the quality of their teaching. Those subsidies are not all used to subsidize student tuitions, they also go to research.


I wonder how you think the system in Canada works...



> Really? So increasing the number of students per class (for instance), while not increasing the overhead, cost of labour, etc, doesn't increase profit? How do you figure?


Sure, you could probably save a lot of money by lowering the quality of education given at a university.  The government could save money by not paving the highways, too.



> First, I would like to know how you are spending 100k in 4 years at say U of T or UBC. Second, I don't care that your parents can't pay. And third, if it really is 100k for 4 years, I definately don't want anything to do with paying that bill. It's your choice to go, you pay.


Well, since the universities would be completely unsubsidized (as you say, all subsidies are bad), the full amount of the education cost must be borne by the student. According to G-Ape's chart above, the cost per student for a year of university at an inexpensive unsubsidized institution is USD$15k, or about CAD$17.5k.  Add $8k for eight months a year of (very lean) living, books, etc and you get about $25k a year.  Times four years makes a university degree at a lower-end school $100k.



> And there's not much point in discussing this with you if you fail to realize that people will go to University with or without a subsidy.


Sure they would, but they'd be measured in the tens of thousand instead of the hundreds of thousand.  We need more engineers, doctors, lawyers, scientists, etc than that.


----------



## dutchie (13 Dec 2005)

Both Hamiltongs and G-Ape have points, from a socialist point of view. I don't share your opinions, nor your outlook on what is an acceptable expenditure for tax revenue. Essentially we are now down to throwing stats around, and saying I'm right and you're wrong. 

From a free market, libertarian perspective, I am 'right'. From a socialist perspective, you two are 'right'.

Unless either of us is able to convince the other, this debate will continue with no progress of ideas, therefore, continuing this line is pointless.

I say subsidies, save some very pecific circumstances, are bad economic policy, and most economists will agree with me. You disagree. I encourage you to vote NDP, and elect more socialists to the House. Myself, I will be voting for the party that will spend the least of my money on other's bills. I have enough of my own.


----------



## larry Strong (13 Dec 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Both Hamiltongs and G-Ape have points, from a socialist point of view. I don't share your opinions, nor your outlook on what is an acceptable expenditure for tax revenue. Essentially we are now down to throwing stats around, and saying I'm right and you're wrong.
> 
> I say subsidies, save some very pecific circumstances, are bad economic policy, and most economists will agree with me. You disagree. I encourage you to vote NDP, and elect more socialists to the House. Myself, I will be voting for the party that will spend the least of my money on other's bills. I have enough of my own.



Words well put. Thank you.


----------



## Kilo_302 (19 Dec 2005)

One thing that is distressing to me is the fact that in Canada, having a good defence policy but also investing in education, and other social programs seem to be mutually exclusive. I am one of those rare breeds of "realists" that believes in a strong, well balanced military for the purposes of enhancing our foreign policy, thus enhancing our trade relationships with other nations, thus enabling us to invest more in the social safety net, a national day care program etc. It is possible to have both in Canada. If only Jack Layton had a robust defence policy that wasn't centered around statements geared to provoke an emotional reaction such as "We should not send anymore Canadian soldiers to Afghanistan, they will be going blindly into combat" and the like.  The only thing the NDP has that resembles a defence policy is a promise not to go through with NMD, and a promise to have a "debate" on what the future focus of the Canadian Forces should be. While the NDP has to differentiate itself from the Liberals, I think there a lot of Canadians with relatively progressive values that want an effective military without having to vote in the Tories, and without having to re-elect the Liberals, who have, as any party in power for more than a decade would, become extremely corrupt.


----------



## UberCree (19 Dec 2005)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I think there a lot of Canadians with relatively progressive values that want an effective military without having to vote in the Tories, and without having to re-elect the Liberals, who have, as any party in power for more than a decade would, become extremely corrupt.



You must be extremely smart, cuz you think just like I do.

I am lobbying the Green party to form an EcoSF unit.  Based out of the Boreal Forest the unit would respond to any offenses against international ecological standards.  Oil spill?  These guys would go in and kill anyone responsible.  Sorta like the Isreali's after Munich.   >


----------



## a_majoor (19 Dec 2005)

Were the "Rainbow Warrior" and "Sea Shepard" the naval elements of your unit? Does PETA count as a support unit or Auxiliaries?

Need to know before I sign up!


----------



## redleafjumper (20 Dec 2005)

PETA?  Is that "People Eating Tasty Animals"?


----------



## Kat Stevens (20 Dec 2005)

Planned Eradication of Troublesome Activists     >


----------



## UberCree (20 Dec 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Were the "Rainbow Warrior" and "Sea Shepard" the naval elements of your unit? Does PETA count as a support unit or Auxiliaries?
> 
> Need to know before I sign up!



PETA is a tier 3 unit.  I am talking a tier 1 unit.  Training pipeline of approx 16 months; para, halo, scuba, trapping and hunting, bicycle maintenance, skin care etc.  No expense will be spared.  The unit will be able to project Canadian hard and soft green-power worldwide within 18 hours maximum.  


The first priority will be to create an Offical Secrets Act.  
Second priority will be to transform the CF into a lean mean and 'green' fighting machine, all CF members that cannot meet a very high fitness standard will be culled.  My initial suggestion is the set an olympic distance triathlon benchmark of 2:45:00, if you cannot meet the standard you are fired at the finish line.
SHARP classes will be replaced with reduce reuse recylce classes (David Suzuki will be the MND).  
All inf pers will get reloaders.  
All military veh. will become hybrid powered.

As this is a party in development, of course some minor alterations to my plan may occur.  


The Green Party candidate in my riding is a Juijitsu black belt (studied in Japan for a few years) and coaches high school wrestling.  Good guy.


----------



## Kilo_302 (20 Dec 2005)

glad to see everyone is eager to debate politics without resorting to stereotypes.. as everyone SHOULD know, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Dec 2005)

Funny, I always thought it was the highest but MOST people just were not smart enough to grasp GOOD sarcasm....


----------



## Kilo_302 (20 Dec 2005)

" 'Sarcasm' " is the inability of a feeble mind to fully express itself"   


oooooh I win!! Connect 4 !!!


----------



## UberCree (20 Dec 2005)

I wasn't being sarcastic.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Dec 2005)

UberCree said:
			
		

> PETA is a tier 3 unit.   I am talking a tier 1 unit.   Training pipeline of approx 16 months; para, halo, scuba, trapping and hunting, bicycle maintenance, skin care etc.   No expense will be spared.   The unit will be able to project Canadian hard and soft green-power worldwide within 18 hours maximum.
> 
> The first priority will be to create an Offical Secrets Act.
> Second priority will be to transform the CF into a lean mean and 'green' fighting machine, all CF members that cannot meet a very high fitness standard will be culled.   My initial suggestion is the set an olympic distance triathlon benchmark of 2:45:00, if you cannot meet the standard you are fired at the finish line.
> ...



OK send me the recruiting forms. "Culling" the weak candidates was something I always thought necessary as a training NCO, we could combine this with the live fire instinctive shooting ranges for the more advanced members.

Fun and games aside, this is a brilliant idea for the "real" CF. 

As for your candidate, whatever his personal qualities, I also look at what they represent in the broader context. With this in mind, I would refuse to vote for any person, regardless of their resume, who represents the Liberal Party of Canada. This does not mean I am totally amoral, if the Conservative candidate was a dork, he/she/it would get a pass as well (second order effect, how could such a person implement the ideas/ideals of the party in question?).

Infanteer has gone on about this subject in other threads, but here is a good article which talks about the origins of the democratic system, and may have some hints how to improve the system we are stuck with today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy


----------



## redleafjumper (21 Dec 2005)

Sarcastic? Who me?


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jan 2006)

Man, I watched Green Party leader Jim Harris try and crack a "Dr Evil" joke on TV today.  He should stay away from comedy - he makes Stephen Harper score a "Robin Williams" on a personality scale.


----------



## TCBF (12 Jan 2006)

"I am lobbying the Green party to form an EcoSF unit.  Based out of the Boreal Forest the unit would respond to any offenses against international ecological standards.  Oil spill?  These guys would go in and kill anyone responsible.  Sorta like the Isreali's after Munich."

- An Enviro-Nazi is still a Nazi.

Green power = Black Death. 

Tom


----------



## TCBF (12 Jan 2006)

PETA:  People Embarrassing Tidewater Area.  ( That's what their neighbours call them).

Tom


----------



## Gunnar (12 Jan 2006)

You mean it's not People Eating Tasty Animals?

Who knew?


----------



## Bart Nikodem (21 Jan 2006)

Marijuana party man! And this time I will totally vote, not like last time where I spaced on the date and missed the election by a week.....they call them fingers but have you ever seen them fing? Oh, there they go.  Anybody here got some nachos?  :blotto:


----------



## The Gues-|- (21 Jan 2006)

Who's the communist?


----------



## a_majoor (21 Jan 2006)

The serious answer:

On Monday, I will vote for my children, and for Canada.


----------



## Bart Nikodem (29 Jan 2006)

Remember to cast your vote on Monday! What do you mean last week? Oh man not again. :-[ If anybody needs me I'll be in the den eating nachos and watching my Lava lamp. :blotto:


----------

