# Is our military Conservative or Liberal ?



## observor 69 (5 Dec 2006)

A few decades ago my brother, at the time in the US Army, said he assumed the Canadian military voted Conservative because the US military was certainly Republican. US military web sites appear to confirm that opinion. How about us, are you Conservative, is our Army, the Air Force and Navy?
Me? I consider myself socially liberal, fiscally conservative, ie. part of that great Canadian political middle. I  pragmatically vote either party; depending on party leader and platform.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Dec 2006)

I think, for the most part, you just answered your own question.


----------



## MG34 (5 Dec 2006)

Conservative ,always have been always will be, the others are not even an option,espescially if you wear a uniform and wish to remain employed.


----------



## Elwood (5 Dec 2006)

I'd hope the CF isn't so shallow as to exclusively vote right wing just because the US military does.

Myself, I'll support any party that wishes to bring a peaceful resolve to the Afghan mission and has present and future plans to keep the CF healthy. Liberal or Conservative or any other party doesn't matter. What matters is what they can provide for the CF and the rest of the country.


----------



## onecat (5 Dec 2006)

Elwood said:
			
		

> I'd hope the CF isn't so shallow as to exclusively vote right wing just because the US military does.
> 
> Myself, I'll support any party that wishes to bring a peaceful resolve to the Afghan mission and has present and future plans to keep the CF healthy. Liberal or Conservative or any other party doesn't matter. What matters is what they can provide for the CF and the rest of the country.



I agree you have to base your vote on what best for you, but if your going to voted based on the health of CF, then Liberal is not the party to vote for.  After all which party put the CF in its current state, the Liberals.  There are many reasons to vote liberal, military support is not one of them.  Also don;t forget that it was Liberals who sent the CF on the Afghan mission, and send us south, and their decission had nothing to with supporting Goerge W. Many liberal like to forget that part it.  Like past defence minister's and interm leader.. who were all in government and at the table at the time.


----------



## onecat (5 Dec 2006)

To add to my last post.

"Liberal leadership contender Stephane Dion says Canada should withdraw its troops ''with honour'' from Afghanistan before 2009 because their current mission is ill-conceived and misguided."

This the new leader saying this... but of course he was there at the time the so called ill-conceived mission was put place.  funny he fails to say that he was there or it was his party to sent the CF there and fully voted for it for under Jean and paul.  this why you can't trust the Liberal party on what it says or means.


----------



## UberCree (5 Dec 2006)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> ... the US military was certainly Republican. US military web sites appear to confirm that opinion.



I would disagree with this assertion.  
A contemporary polling would show diversity of opinion, like those contained in any group of professionals.

If you are looking for treands, and common beliefs, I would say that in spite of political differences one thing that CF members have in common, wether they vote Green, Liberal, BQ, Conservative or NDP, is that they believe in forcefully standing up for their beliefs.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Dec 2006)

I think the _*current*_ trend towards voting Conservative started in the ‘60s.

There was considerable support for the Tories in the ‘40s – mostly because the _overseas_ military, a volunteer, _duration of hostilities only_, citizens’ military hated King for his dithering over conscription.  That changed in the ‘50s.  St Laurent and, to a lesser degree Pearson, were seen as pro-military – not just in terms of spending but also in terms of what I would an _agenda of respect_ for the military itself, and for defence policy issues.

Three hammer blows fell in the ‘60s:

1.	Peacekeeping went from being a useful _sideshow_ – something to do while we waited for the _main event_ – the _Red hordes_ streaming across the North German Plain – to being a _raison d’être_ in and of itself  (favoured by both Conservatives and Liberals as a way to contain spiralling defence budget demands which occurred just as the country wanted, expected huge social spending);

2.	Paul Hellyer’s misnamed _unification_ scheme (it was, really, _integration_ but that’s whole other debate (happened on Pearson’s watch); and

3.	Trudeau’s ’68 foreign and defence policy vandalism.

Mulroney talked good defence policy but did nothing.  Chrétien was another vandal – for much the same reasons as Trudeau: he wanted to spend, Spend, SPEND! on personal, social _entitlements_ and being anti-American (and America being the _sine qua non_ of ‘military’) always plays well in Canada.  Harper?  Let’s wait and see – so far, so good.  Dion – as I said over here - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/54132/post-490454.html#msg490454 – two cheers, so far, on one issue.  Time will tell, but I suspect his political heart is not in foreign and defence policy.

The last time, perhaps the only time, we had a PM with significant interest and real skills in foreign and defence matters was in the ‘50s: Louis St Laurent.

I think the shifting political preferences of the military reflect the reverse of the preferences of the PM of the day.  For the most part, from around 1965 to 2005, ‘we’ have been anti-government.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Dec 2006)

If I was ONLY concerned about the military, then the Conservatives would be the party I voted for. As a citizen and human being (and husband, father and homeowner) I have plenty of other considerations to take to the voting booth with me, and cast my ballot for the candidate and party which can best meet all or most of my needs and desires.

I also look at past performance as an indicator of future intent, I have lived under both Liberal and Progressive Conservative national governments (and now a Conservative one), as well as Liberal, Conservative and NDP provincial governments, so have a very good idea how ideas get translated into action by these parties.

The Army, like any other institution, is made up of individual people with their own goals. The great mistake socialists make is equating people with the institution, which explains why union bosses never can deliver "the workers" to the NDP come election time. It would be a grave mistake for the Conservatives to believe the military is an assured voting block.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Dec 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> If I was ONLY concerned about the military, then the Conservatives would be the party I voted for. As a citizen and human being (and husband, father and homeowner) I have plenty of other considerations to take to the voting booth with me, and cast my ballot for the candidate and party which can best meet all or most of my needs and desires.
> 
> I also look at past performance as an indicator of future intent, I have lived under both Liberal and Progressive Conservative national governments (and now a Conservative one), as well as Liberal, Conservative and NDP provincial governments, so have a very good idea how ideas get translated into action by these parties.



Well, a Liberal Government who put a ten year wage freeze on my wages, really has to do a lot to make me forget almost going into the 'Poor House'.


----------



## Elwood (5 Dec 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> It would be a grave mistake for the Conservatives to believe the military is an assured voting block.



Well said. Most of us can agree that the Liberals (Pearson to Martin) and the Conservatives (Diefenbaker, Mulroney) have all fudged up on military spending in the past. So far, Stephen Harper's Conservatives are doing well, but it's obvious that the military is an important current issue to Canadians. I won't be surprised if the Liberals take a more pro-military stance in the next election.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Dec 2006)

Elwood said:
			
		

> I won't be surprised if the Liberals take a more pro-military stance in the next election.


I would be very surprised if they did.  They will focus on green things, but not Cadpat.  They will talk about "withdrawal with honour".  The Liberals have a lot of competition on the left (NDP and Greens).  They will attempt to fight THAT battle whilst attempting to get the Red Tories on their side.


----------



## 2 Cdo (5 Dec 2006)

Is our military Conservative or Liberal? I would have to say the simple answer is yes! ;D


----------



## observor 69 (5 Dec 2006)

Captain Scarlet said:
			
		

> I would be very surprised if they did.  They will focus on green things, but not Cadpat.  They will talk about "withdrawal with honour".  The Liberals have a lot of competition on the left (NDP and Greens).  They will attempt to fight THAT battle whilst attempting to get the Red Tories on their side.



But Cap'n, Cap'n  you didn't answer the question !
But I think you got the  Liberal  political game plan right., they don't have any other sensible option. Try to position the party in the Canadian voter's comfortable political middle

When you consider all the players/factors in the Afghan mix maybe "withdrawl with honour?" is the best/only end this mission can have.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Dec 2006)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> When you consider all the players/factors in the Afghan mix maybe "withdrawl with honour?" is the best/only end this mission can have.



I disagree.  The only end I can see for this mission is success.  That success is when the Afghan military and police can do all the dirty work themselves and the country is prosperous enough to not fall back into anarchy.

Just my opinion, worth every penny.

As for the original question: military members are of all political stripes.  Liberals, Conservatives, Bloquistes, NDPer's, greens, and probably even supporters of the Marajuana Party!


----------



## PPCLI Guy (5 Dec 2006)

Our military is, of course, apolitical, and that must ever be the case.  

The answer to your question then must be that the military is Canadian.


----------



## observor 69 (5 Dec 2006)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Is our military Conservative or Liberal? I would have to say the simple answer is yes! ;D



OK the contest is over and 2 Cdo wins with his answer! 
 ;D


----------



## paracowboy (5 Dec 2006)

there is no such thing as "Withdrawal with Honour".

There is success, or there is failure. In the eyes of our enemies, both those we are fighting overtly, and those we are fighting by proxy (theirs), anything less than an over-whelming victory for us, is a victory for them. And that will embolden them further. And *that* will have horrific consequences.

"Withdraw with honour".  : Runnin' away is runnin' away. Call it straight, or don't call it.


----------



## scoutfinch (6 Dec 2006)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Our military is, of course, apolitical, and that must ever be the case.
> 
> The answer to your question then must be that the military is Canadian.



Thank you.  Finally.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Dec 2006)

The military is apolitical; soldiers are not; they vote.

I think, but I am away and I cannot find a reference to facts, that the when the _Special Ballots_ (many of which are military ballots - http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=gen&document=ec90550&dir=bkg&lang=e&textonly=false ) are counted there has been, since the ‘40s, fairly consistent trends, which I described above.  In most cases*, I believe, and one MP (Stoffer/Halifax) agreed - on an anecdotal basis, the military vote is against the government-of-the-day because, conjecture on my part, most serving governments are disinterested in the military and most military personnel, like most Canadians, vote their _self interest_ which, in the case of military members, includes support for the institution in which they serve.


----------
* The notable exception is St. Laurent’s Liberals in the ‘50s.


----------



## canadianblue (7 Dec 2006)

I think when it comes down to which party to vote for, wearing cadpat doesn't make much of a difference. I've met some members who voted NDP and Liberals, when I vote I look at things other than which party is best for the military. I voted Conservative in the last election, however I would consider voting Liberal if they elected Kennedy, and also consider voting for the NDP if it was led by Peter Stoffer [Third Way].


----------



## Troop Suporter (10 Dec 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> there is no such thing as "Withdrawal with Honour".
> 
> There is success, or there is failure. In the eyes of our enemies, both those we are fighting overtly, and those we are fighting by proxy (theirs), anything less than an over-whelming victory for us, is a victory for them. And that will embolden them further. And *that* will have horrific consequences.
> 
> "Withdraw with honour".  : Runnin' away is runnin' away. Call it straight, or don't call it.



BUMP!

Withdrawal is defeat. That end this mission can not have. Will not have.


----------



## Troop Suporter (10 Dec 2006)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> I think when it comes down to which party to vote for, wearing cadpat doesn't make much of a difference. I've met some members who voted NDP and Liberals, when I vote I look at things other than which party is best for the military. I voted Conservative in the last election, however I would consider voting Liberal if they elected Kennedy, and also consider voting for the NDP if it was led by Peter Stoffer [Third Way].



Have you ever heard of Maurice Strong, Paul Desmarais, or Power Corp.?
They are the power behind the Liberal party. Behind Cretchien, Martin, Rae.

<a href="http://www.acepilots.com/unscam/archives/001890.html">Canadian Connection to Oil For Food</a>

As if they care what they have to promise the public, to get more votes. To get power back.
If a party has good ideas, and then doesn't follow through with them, at best they've lied, at worst it was an act to achieve other aims.


----------



## JesseWZ (10 Dec 2006)

I think the Liberals negative ad campaign may have contributed to many CF members lean towards the Tories.

"Stephen Harper actually announced he wants to increase military presence in our cities. Canadian cities. Soldiers with guns. In our cities. In Canada. We did not make this up."  Anyone remember that gem?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Liberal_Party_of_Canada_election_ads

I know the source isn't exactly the most concrete out there, however it does contain what I was referring to.


----------



## Cloud Cover (10 Dec 2006)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Our military is, of course, apolitical, and that must ever be the case.
> 
> The answer to your question then must be that the military is Canadian.



Yes and no to a good answer in a highly theoretical debate. 

I personally believe this is one of the instances where we must separate (a) the "military" from "miltary service" (in its widest sense), from (b) the individual who steps forward and serves his/her country through military service for whatever contextual reasons bring them to that a common point of convergence with other individuals. The common point of convergence is duty, honour, sacrifice, and obedience all rolled into one purpose and shaped into a lethal form capable of incredible violence and more often credible restraint.

I would agree there is no such thing as a Conservative or Liberal military - it is an inanimate object comprised of plans, rules, theories, tactics, strategies, stock and serial numbers and yet curiously it has a collective directing mind which as a matter of survival must be two very important things (i)  warrior orientated by nature (certainly not a political trait in a democracy) and (ii) apolitical in nature- a definitve characteristic on a closed society distinctively based on the power of inner self discipline whether acquired or innate. 

It then goes wonky from there and becomes a full circle -the "military" is simply the sum of its constituent parts, the most significant part of which is those who perform, performed or otherwise serve under the rubric of "military service", all of whom hold individual political beliefs and common characteristics which drive the warrior nature of the organization. 

Theoretically speaking, of course.


----------



## NL_engineer (10 Dec 2006)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> I think the Liberals negative ad campaign may have contributed to many CF members lean towards the Tories.



I have to agree on that one; but with change of the party leader, the liberal stance MAY change.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (10 Dec 2006)

The way I see the militarys political stance is that even though it may always lean in a certain direction, it has no choice but to be whatever is in power at the time.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Dec 2006)

Of course our military is 'conservative'.  All militaries are.  What political persuasion its' members are is a whole different question and in the case of Canada's military, one that no one is probably going to find a distinct and lasting answer to.


----------



## NL_engineer (10 Dec 2006)

+1 to whiskey601  8)

IMO it is pointless arguing if the military is Liberal or Conservative. 

That just my 2 cents


----------



## Fabius (10 Dec 2006)

George Wallace is I believe correct when he says that the military is "conservative". It has been largely accepted that the United States military and by their very nature most militaries are a conservative organization. The debate is not and should not be about what an individual soldier votes come election time, that is a political matter. That said the notion of conservative or liberal is not necessarily a political view with regards to the current political parties within Canada or other state. It needs to be stated that the conservative or liberal view that exists as a majority within a military is not big C conservatism or big L liberalism. The question concerns the small letter versions of both, the overall philosophical outlook on state/human relations that was espoused by such individuals as Hobbs, Hume, Locke, Rousseau and Mill. If one looks at the overall political outlook of these philosophers, I would tend to think that one would likely find that the attitudes and beliefs of most military personal would correspond most closely with those of the conservative thinkers versus the liberal ones. In this respect the Canadian military is most likely at its heart composed of those with a small c conservative belief.


----------



## Elwood (10 Dec 2006)

Nice stuff Fabius. Even a quick glance at the posts on this site would support your opinion that the Canadian military is a little right-wing at it's core. I know that some people on this site are non-military, but it's apparent that the people who post about politics would exude a more Conservative political stance. 

Most posters support a Conservative view; a lot would support the best government (Tories or Grits... but mostly Tories). However, I've yet to see a post on this site where someone is staunchly Liberal. I've yet to see a post where the N.D.P. is not bashed. 

P.S.: You gotta love the Green Party for trying.


----------



## JesseWZ (10 Dec 2006)

Well... without the Green Party, election sign concentrations would be far more bland. You got your red, orange and blue... green just adds a little something.


----------



## STONEY (11 Dec 2006)

Some anchient history for you.  Once upon a time you had to be 21 to vote in Canadian elections. The only exception to this was if you were in the military who were alowed to vote at any age. The thought was if you were old enough to serve your country you were old enough to vote.  Service members were required to make a declaration in writeing and decide what federal riding they wanted to vote in which could be where they were born, where they joined or where they were stationed  etc.  When a Federal election was held  service members voted in advance where they were stationed and the vote was counted seperately from the rest of the country and added to the rideing counts a day after the election .  If there were any close contests in any ridings across the country (ie only a few votes difference)  the military vote usually made the difference and at that time the Liberals usually had a sigh of relief because the military vote was always 85 to 90% in their favour.  Oh how times have changed.

Cheers!


----------



## nowhere_man (11 Dec 2006)

STONEY said:
			
		

> Some ancient history for you.  Once upon a time you had to be 21 to vote in Canadian elections. The only exception to this was if you were in the military who were allowed to vote at any age. The thought was if you were old enough to serve your country you were old enough to vote.



That's a really good idea they should do that now and while you're at it make a thing so that if you're in the military and underage you can buy beer


----------



## wilde (11 Dec 2006)

The Forces are made up of a cross section of our population...rich, poor, educated or not, competent and NOT. A person votes on their own wants, needs and dreams. So if 40% of the country vote for a party you can assume that 40% of the Forces have voted that way as well. Are the forces Conservative? I would say we are Canadian.


----------



## Willing Foe (11 Dec 2006)

Captain Scarlet said:
			
		

> I would be very surprised if they did.  They will focus on green things, but not Cadpat.  They will talk about "withdrawal with honour".  The Liberals have a lot of competition on the left (NDP and Greens).  They will attempt to fight THAT battle whilst attempting to get the Red Tories on their side.



The Liberals practice a form of politics called Brokerage Mode Politics, the accommodative, pragmatic policies the party has employed in both election campaigns and the day-to-day operation of government - in other words find out what the polls want you to say and say it. That doesn't necessarily mean "Do it" just "Say it". That is why they can be for immigrants but spend years refusing to progress the recognition of foreign qualifications and for Kyoto but never do anything to implement policies and programmes to advance it. This is why they are the "Natural Ruling Party". They are focussed entirely on getting into and staying in power - not on governing the country. You can't do that if you have any policies that you can be held to. This is also why the Conservatives fail to stay in power for very long - they have a set of ethics and policies that define them and the Liberals are free to adopt anything that brings a vote without having to be saddled with an obligation to implement.
The Federal Liberal Party is a consistent machine. The policies and practices of the government of Wilfred Laurier at the turn of the 20th century are resounding like those of Jean Chretien a hundred years later. They are roughly focussed on maintaining the primacy of the Liberal Party of Canada, make money for their friends, and hold the dominance of Central Canada (Ontario and Quebec) largely through fostering the tension between French and English Canada and ensuring that the flow of wealth continued to flow to the centre. They are dismissive of the East, contemptuous of the West and don't understand the concept of honour (it goes against the prime directive - Do what is necessary to stay in power). 
Very few politicians have been willing to sacrifice the good of their party for the good of the country - and they were all Conservative.
I have spoken of a small subset of political positions which does not include most social policies. I will never again join a polical party - I left the last one for similar reasons to those above - but I can think of only one at the moment that I would vote for.


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Dec 2006)

In my view, if you want good a government positive for Defence, vote for the Torres.

I used to when I lived in Canada, but in Australia, we have Labour (left), and the Liberals (right), so if one wants something positive for the ADF, you vote the Libs, as in Aussie, they are the Conservatives.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## a_majoor (11 Dec 2006)

Oddly the Conservative position is for individual rights, equality at law, freedom of speech, association and property rights, most of which we in the military willingly have restricted in order to remain a useful and apolitical tool for the government.

But there is certainly a wide cross section of people in the military, and I have had entertaining debates in the shacks as to why the NDP would have made the best Canadian government by true believers in uniform. Mind you, with the advent of Jack Layton and his crew, true believers are no longer to be found in uniform, and I haven't seen too many Green Party supporters, but statistically speaking, about 5.5% of the CF would probably vote Green based on their national electoral results.

I don't think the CF is or can be treated as a voting block, and anyone who thinks so should remember the lesson of the Unions; the "bosses" may control the funding and communicate "the message"; but in the end the membership votes according to each individuals preference.


----------



## NL_engineer (11 Dec 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> But there is certainly a wide cross section of people in the military, and I have had entertaining debates in the shacks as to why the NDP would have made the best Canadian government by true believers in uniform. Mind you, with the advent of Jack Layton and his crew, true believers are no longer to be found in uniform, and I haven't seen too many Green Party supporters, but statistically speaking, about 5.5% of the CF would probably vote Green based on their national electoral results.



I know a number of CF members who voted green, because they did not want to vote red, blue, or orange.


----------



## sigtech (11 Dec 2006)

They all lie 

But I would have to say at least Conservative appears to be pro DnD


----------



## Fabius (11 Dec 2006)

Most definitely the CF as a whole can not be considered a homogeneous voting block, such an idea is highly naive. As a_majoor mentioned I remember many very vigorous debates over politics with strong liberal and NDP supporters in uniform. It is interesting how the very values of the conservative ideology are too a significant degree voluntarily rescinded by those who join the military. I can only offer my opinion that due to their commitment and belief in the values that they are somewhat attracted to the notion of defending these said values.


----------



## Bigmac (11 Dec 2006)

Being a maritimer my family has always been openly PC (Progressive Conservative). Unfortunately the new Conservative party is also made up of previous Reformers and Alliance politicians which make it a little too far religious right for my liking at times. The Liberal party has become an elitist haven filled with wealthy businessmen who care only about the rich and the NDP have a crappy leader that changes positions more often than a honeymoon couple reading the Kama Sutra.
   So what do I as a military member do come election time since I don't get a warm and fuzzy from the political parties? I do what every other Canadian does, I listen to what the candidates say, read carefully their plans for Canada and vote for the party that I think would best suit my interests and that of our country.  So far the Conservatives are doing alright to me but that does not necessarily lock my vote in on the next election.
    My opinion is the military is no different than anyone else in Canada when it comes to voting in an election.


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Dec 2006)

Bigmac said:
			
		

> So what do I as a military member do come election time since I don't get a warm and fuzzy from the political parties? I do what every other Canadian does, I listen to what the candidates say, read carefully their plans for Canada and vote for the party that I think would best suit my interests and that of our country.


:rofl:

You're kidding, right?  Most Canadians do NOT vote that way.  Hell, most Canadians think that we are in Iraq and the George Bush (Jr.) is pushing for an american empire in the middle east and that "Steve" Harper is his puppet!


----------



## GO!!! (11 Dec 2006)

I think that most of the voting of the CF can be split along the geographical lines of their residence.

Here in the west, I find it hard to believe that any members of my unit voted Lieberal, but after working with several units from the east, I believe that they would be conservative. There is also another unit I've seen that has been known to fly their provincial flag on vehicles, I'm not sure if this means that they vote BQ though.

Even here in Edmonton though - it's hard to say positions on various issues are split between the important two parties, it's bright blue from what I can see!
Abortion? Yes
Gun Control? No
Separtism? Traitorous
Welfare? Get a job

Western alienation is a big deal here, Albertans see the preferential treatment that Quebec gets and resent it, and I see that attitude in my unit too.


----------



## STONEY (12 Dec 2006)

I agree that the forces vote geographicaly so do civies.  GO says nobody votes Liberal in the west  while in N.S. the Conservatives ran a poor third in the last election . But in the next????  Who can say thats why they have elections.

Toodles


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Dec 2006)

Back in the 80's the rank and file voted across the board and the Officers generally seem to vote to the right. However I suspect that the Liberals, NDP and Greens have burnt out and destroyed any possible support they would have in the forces.


----------



## North Star (13 Dec 2006)

I'd never vote Liberal now...they're so ignorant of the reality outside of Canada and they're making no effort to learn. They'll continue to make a laughing-stock out of this country with stupid comments such as Dion's.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Dec 2006)

Up here, things have become polarized and the choices quite limited. If you want a strong military (strong for Canada that is) and you are a lawful firearm owner such as myself, you are left with only one choice, which is CPC. The Greens, NDP and Liberals all have polices that are against firearm ownership and having a properly equipped military that can respond to the will of the people through the edicts of the government.

While each party has some decent candidates they are bound by strict party discipline to the overriding goals of the party. I believe a US Congressman is much more free to vote their conscious or for the benefit of their constituents than their Parliamentary counterparts.


----------



## Boxkicker (14 Dec 2006)

Apersons political belief is a very personal and highly contoversial subject at times.  My own belief is how is a social moderate( I will not say liberal) fiscal conservative. I have always voted Tory for the simple fact that they seem to do what they say, plus I own personal firearms. If Paul Martin woulld have stuck to his guns I could have almost voted for him but then of course there is the rest of the baggage attached to him, pay freeze's budget cuts and all the rest. Let us face reality the Liberal's will LIE and do whatever it takes to keep power, so that show's NO honor so I automatically will not vote for that. 

  I have seen reports though that generalise all Tories as religous zealots and western wingnuts. Well I am a westerner and neither.

  As a member of the military it does behoove me though how member's of the forces could vote for any party of the left. Here is my two cents on them, and it is only my personal opinion.

   Liberals look at there record over the last 40 years, I do not think any more needs to be said.

  NDP they in the last 15 years have become more of a special interest and peace activist group than anything. They have seem to forgotten that the 60's are over. Ed Broadbent's NDP is not the same as Jack Layton's. The NDP has always been anti military, but I do think Ed Broadbent had a little more grip on what the world is really like. Also look at there defence policy you will see that we would have NO armour, NO ships or a single airplane that could drop a bomb, and you cannot forget that we would be commanded from New York.   

  The Greens are a even more fuzzy friendly version of the NDP who would tax us even harder. Under these people we would be out of a job faster than the NDP.

 The BLOC dont get me started, the country I was born in fought a war over separation. My only thoughts on this are if anyone in the CANADIAN military votes for these guy's turn in your ID card NOW!!!!

  What I will say is from the BIO's of the leader's of the LIB's, NDP and the BLOC, is that all were at one point member's of the Communist party or experimented with it.

  But that is my 2 cents, after all we are a democracy and everyone is entitled to there opinion, and WE are the protector's.


----------



## Boxkicker (14 Dec 2006)

I guess I should have used SPELLCHECK.


----------

