# Another Rant on Politicians & Parties: Split from Address by the Prime Minister



## Toronto_NCO (22 Apr 2005)

a bit off topic but, what do you think other countries think of Canada's current political situation?  If this type of "scandal" was to happen in the USA, how much of a big deal would it be there?  (also replace "USA" with any other NATO/G7/G8 member)

Just doing some late night thinking....(and am interested to see other posts/replies)!


----------



## daniel h. (22 Apr 2005)

I don't mean to be a drip, but please don't let Harper fool you that he'll be any better. This scandal is relatively minor, and does relate to national unity, which the CF supports.
Harper has said in the past that Albertans should "build a firewall around Alberta." 

He refuses to talk about his positions anymore. He wants to privatize medicare against the wishes of the majority. He wants to go to war in Iraq against the will of the majority. He wants massive corporate tax cuts against the will of the majority. He wants to expand the military--but only to play U.S.A. quisling, against the will of the majority.
Stephen Harper has been to bilderberg meeting, dedicated to eliminating countries so corporations can do what they want, against the will of the majority:

www.bilderberg.org
www.gateway.ualberta.ca/view.php?aid=2632



> Where is the media at Bilderberg?
> Aaron Braaten
> 
> The most orgiastic display of coordinated corporate capitalism/state cronyism happens at the annual Bilderberg meetings, but since
> ...


.

To get an idea who the movers and shakers are in 2003--including Stephen Harper: 
(Paul Martin, Jean Chretien, Pierre Trudeau, Mike Harris, Ralph Klein, Stephane Dion, Robert Bourassa, Bernard Lord, Frank McKenna have also been to these meetings in the past) 
www.bilderberg.org/2003.htm

2003 Agenda -- from Bilderberg Press Release 
"The conference will deal mainly with European-American relations and in this context Iraq, The Middle East after Terrorism, Non-Proliferation, The European Convention, Economic Problems." (rest of 'press release' much like previous years but no participant list yet)      
2003 Participant list 
BILDERBERG MEETINGS 
Versailles, France, 15-18th May 2003
CURRENT LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 


B - Honorary Chairman - Davignon, Etienne - Vice-Chairman, Societe Generale de Belgique 
GB - Honorary Secretary General - Taylor. J Martin - Chairman WH Smith PLC; International advisor, Goldman Sachs International 
F - Adler, Alexandre - Editorial counsel, Le Figaro (*) 
I - Ambrosetti, Alfredo - Chairman Ambrosetti Group 
TR - Babacan, Ali - Minister of Economic Affairs 
GR - Bakoyannis, Dora - Mayor of Athens 
GB - Balls, Edward - Chief Economic Advisor to the Treasury 
P - BalsemÃƒÂ£o, Francisco Pinto - Professor of Communication Science, New University, Lisbon; Chairman and CEO, IMPRESA, S.G.P.S.; Former Prime Minister 
P - Barroso, José M. DurÃƒÂ£o - Prime Minister 
TR - Bayar, Mehmet A. - Deputy Chairman of DYP (True Path Party) 
A - Becker, Erich - Chairman of the Managing Board and CEO, VA Technologie AG 
I -   Bendetti, Rodolfo de - Managing Director CIR S.p.A. 
I - Bernabè, Franco - Chairman Franco Bernabe & C. S.p.A. 
F - Beytout, Nicolas - Editor-in-Chief, Les Echos 
KW - Bishara, Ahmad E. - Secretary General of Kuwait's liberal National Democratic Party 
CDN - Black, Conrad M. - Chairman, Telegraph Group Limited 
INT - Bolkestein, Frits - Internal Markets Commissioner, European Commission 
USA - Bolton, John R. - Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security 
F - Bon, Michel - Honorary Chairman, France Telecom 
F - Bruguière, Jean-Louis - First Vice President, Justice Department 
D - Burda, Hubert - Publisher and CEO, Hubert Burda Media Holding GmbH & Co. 
F - Camus, Phillipe - CEO, European Aeronautics Defence and Space company European Aeronautics Defence and Space company (EADS) 
INT - Cary, Anthony J. - Head of Christopher Patten's cabinet, EU. [Patten is European Commissioner for Enlargement]   
F - Castries, Henri de - Chairman of the Board, AXA 
E - CebriÃƒÂ¡n, Juan Luis - CEO, PRISA 
B - Claes, Willy - Minister of State [Willy Claes is not now a Belgian Minister but former Belgian Foreign Minister and former Secretary General of NATO 1994-1995 - now disgraced - TG] 
GB - Clarke, Kenneth - Member of Parliament, [former Chancellor of the Exchequer] 
USA - Collins, Timothy C. - Senior Managing Director and CEO, Ripplewood Holdings LLC 
F - Collomb, Bertrand - Chairman and CEO, Lafarge 
F - Copé, Jean-François - Secretary of State in charge of relations with Parliament; Government Spokesman 
USA - Corzine, Jon S. - Senator (D, New Jersey) 
S - Dahlbäck, Claes - Chairman, Investor AB 
GR - David, George A. - Chairman of the Board, Coca-Cola H.B.C. S.A. 
USA - Donilon, Thomas E. - Executive Vice President, Fannie Mae 
I - Draghi, Mario - Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Goldman Sachs International 
DK - Eldrup, Anders - CEO, Danish Oil and Gas Corporation 
USA - Feldstein, Martin S. - President and CEO, National Bureau of Economic Research 
CDN - Fell, Anthony S. - Chairman, RBC Dominion Securities Inc. 
USA - Friedman, Thomas L. - Foreign Affairs Columnist, The New York Times 
F - Gergorin, Jean-Luis - Executive Vice President, Strategic Coordination, European Aeronautics Defence and Space company (EADS) 
USA - Gigot, Paul A. - Editorial page editor, The Wall Street Journal 
F - Giscard d'Estaing, Valéry - French President 1974-81; Chairman of the Convention on the Future of Europe 
N - Gjedrem, Svein - Governor, Central Bank of Norway 
IRL - Gleeson, Dermot - Chairman designate, Allied Irish Banks, p.l.c. 
GB - Gould, Philip - Public Relations Adviser to Prime Minister Blair 
USA - Haass, Richard N. - Director, Office of Policy Planning Staff, State Department 
NL - Halberstadt, Victor - Professor of Economics, Leiden University; Former honorary Secretary General of Bilderberg Meetings 
*CDN - Harper, Stephen - Leader of the Opposition * 
USA - Hertog, Roger - Vice-Chairman, Alliance Capital Management 
NL - Hoop Scheffer, Jaap G. de - Minister for Foreign Affairs 
USA - Hubbard, Allan B. - President, E&A Industries 
USA - Hubbard, R. Glenn - Russell L. Carson Professor of Economics and Finance, Columbia University 
USA - Johnson, James A. - Vice Chairman, Perseus L.L.C. 
USA - Jordan, Jr., Vernon E. - Senior Managing Director, Lazard Freres & Co. L.L.C. 
CH - Kielholz, Walter B. - Former Chairman of the Board, Credit Suisse; Executive Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors, Swiss Re 
GB - King, Mervyn A. - Deputy Governor, Bank of England 
USA - Kissinger, Henry A. - Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc.; Member, Defense Policy Board; Member J.P. Morgan International Council 
FIN - Kivinen, Olli - Senior Editor & Columnist, Helsingin Sanomat 
NL - Kok, Wim - Former Prime Minister 
D - Kopper, Hilmar - Former Chairman of the Supervisory Board, Deutsche Bank AG 
USA - Kravis, Henry R. - Founding Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. 
USA - Kravis, Marie-Joseé - Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Inc. 
INT - Lamy, Pascal - Trade Commissioner, European Commission 
F - Lellouche, Pierre - Vice Chairman, NATO Parliamentary Assembly (**) 
F - Lévy-Lang, André - Former Chairman, Paribas 
S - Lindh, Anna - Minister for Foreign Affairs 
FIN - Lipponen, Paavo - Former Prime Minister; Speaker of the Parliament 
DK - Lykketoft, Mogens - Chairman, Social Democrat Party 
CDN - MacMillan, Margaret O. - Provost, Trinity College, University of Toronto 
RUS - Margelov, Mikhail V. - Chairman, Committee for Foreign Affairs, Council of Federation 
F - Montbrial, Thierry de - President, French Institute of International Relations (IFRI) 
INT - Monti, Mario - Competition Commissioner, European Commission 
USA - Mundie, Craig J. - Chief Technical Officer, Advanced Strategies and Policy, Microsoft Corporation 
N - Myklebust, Egil - Chairman, Norsk Hydro ASA 
D - Naas, Matthias - Deputy Editor, Die Zeit 
NL - Netherlands, H.M. the Queen of the [Queen Beatrix - Royal Dutch Shell] 
PL - Olechowski, Andrzej - Leader, Civic Platform 
FIN - Ollila, Jorma - Chairman of the Board and CEO, Nokia Corporation 
INT - Padoa-Schioppa, Thomasso - Member of the Executive Board, European Central Bank 
I - Panara, Marco - Journalist, La Republica 
I - Passera, Corrado - Managing Director, Banca IntesaBCI 
USA - Perkovich, George - Vice President for Studies, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 
USA - Perle, Richard N. - Member, Defense Policy Board ; Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute (AEI) for Public Policy Research; member Project for a New American Century (PNAC)   
B - Philippe, H.R.H. Prince - Crown Prince of Belgium 
I - Poli, Roberto - Chairman, Eni S.p.A. 
F - Ranque, Denis - Chairman and CEO, Thales Aerospace and Defence 
DK - Rasmussen, Anders Fogh - Prime Minister 
CDN - Reisman, Heather - President and CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc. 
F - Riboud, Franck - Chairman and CEO, Danone Foods 
CH - Ringier, Michael - CEO, Ringier AG 
USA - Rockefeller, David - Member, J.P. Morgan International Council 
P - Rodrigues, Eduardo Ferro - Leader of the Socialist Party; Member of Parliament 
E - Rodriguez Inciarte, Matias - Executive Vice Chairman, Banco Santander Central Hispano 
F - Roy, Olivier - Senior Researcher, CNRS 
USA - Ruggie, John - Director, Center for Business and Government, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University 
NL - Ruys, Anthony - Chairman of the Board, Heineken N.V. 
TR - Sanberk, Ãƒ-zdem - Director, Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation 
I - Scaroni, Paolo - Managing Director, Enel S.p.A. 
D - Schäuble, Wolfgang - Deputy Parliamentary Leader, CDU/CSU Group 
D - Schily, Otto - Minister of the Interior 
A - Scholten, Rudolf - Member of the Board of Executive Directors, Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG 
D - Schrempp, Jurgen E - Chairman of the Board of Management, Daimler Chrysler AG 
INT - Schwab, Klaus - President, World Economic Forum 
DK - Seidenfaden, Toger - Editor in Chief, Politiken 
RUS - Shevtsova, Lilia - Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 
E - Spain, H.M. the Queen of     [King Juan Carlos (see photo) arrived with the queen, but he is not on this list] 
USA - Steinberg, James B. - Vice President and Director, Foreign Policy Studies Program, The Brookings Institution 
CDN - Steyn, Mark - Journalist for various publications 
IRL - Sutherland, Peter D. - Chairman and Managing Director, Goldman Sachs International; Chairman, BP Amoco 
USA - Thornton, John L. - President and CEO, Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. 
F - Trichet, Jean Claude - Governor, Banque de France 
GR - Tsoukalis, Loukas - Professor, University of Athens; President Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy 
A - Trumpel-Gugerell, Gertrude - Vice Governor, Central Bank of Austria 
CH - Vasella, Daniel L. - Chairman and CEO, Novartis AG 
NL - Veer, Jeroen van der - President, Royal Dutch Petroleum Company; Vice Chairman of the Committee of Managing Directors of Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies 
F - Villin, Philippe - Vice Chairman, Lehman Brothers Europe 
NL - Vries, Klaas de - Member of Parliament (Labour); Former Minister of the Interior 
FIN - Whalroos, BjÃƒÂ¶rn - President and CEO, Sampo plc. 
S - Wallenberg, Jacob - Chairman of the Board, Skandinavivska Enskilda Banken 
GB - Williams, Gareth - Leader of the House of Lords 
GB - Wolf, Martin H. - Associate Editor/Economics Commentator, The Financial Times 
USA/INT - Wolfensohn, James D. - President, The World Bank 
USA - Wolfowitz, Paul - Deputy Secretary of Defense, US Department of Defense 
USA - Zakaria, Fareed - Editor, Newsweek International 
USA - Zoellick, Robert - Principal Trade Adviser to the President 
D - Zumwinkel, Klaus - Chairman, Deutsche Post Worldnet AG 

Rapporteurs 
GB - Micklethwait, R. John - United States Editor, The Economist 
GB - Rachman, Gideon - Brussels Correspondent, The Economist


----------



## Guardian (22 Apr 2005)

Opinions like this just leave me sputtering...



			
				daniel h. said:
			
		

> I don't mean to be a drip, but please don't let Harper fool you that he'll be any better.



You're letting Martin fool you into thinking _he'll_ be better than Harper. On what basis?



			
				daniel h. said:
			
		

> This scandal is relatively minor, and does relate to national unity, which the CF supports.



Please don't imply that the CF supports the kind of crass corruption we're seeing come out of this scandal. You're spitting on my uniform.

No scandal where the government lies to the public, stealing their hard-earned tax dollars, and uses them to fill their own partisan coffers can be called "minor."  The issue here is not the amount of money - it's the loss of integrity and public trust that we expect in a government.  You are saying here that corruption should be tolerated. If that's what you'd have us believe is a "Canadian value," well then I'd rather not be Canadian.



			
				daniel h. said:
			
		

> He refuses to talk about his positions anymore. He wants to privatize medicare against the wishes of the majority.



The Conservatives just held a policy convention, where they "talked about their positions" at length. As for health care, do you seriously expect that a political party in Canada would dismantle publicly funded medicare? They'd last one term, and be booted out - never to return. Ever. 

I'll also point out that Martin, a Liberal, sees a doctor that runs a chain of private clinics, in the Province of Quebec (which is run by a Liberal government). Since you clearly believe everything the Liberals SAY, why don't you take the next logical step and believe what they DO? By your logic, the Liberals are the ones dismantling public health care...



			
				daniel h. said:
			
		

> He wants massive corporate tax cuts against the will of the majority.



The Liberal Party has incorporated corporate tax cuts in their budget - which is why the NDP won't support the budget.



			
				daniel h. said:
			
		

> He wants to go to war in Iraq against the will of the majority.



The Liberals allowed CF members to go to Iraq with coalition units, and they're still there. The new head of the Army doctrine and Training System was the second in command of the US Army's III Corps - the main American ground formation in Iraq - for almost a year over there. I just watched an interview on ATV with a PPCLI major who is in Iraq with the National Guard division there. 

So the vaunted Liberals opposed the war with their mouths, but sent troops anyway. You don't have to agree with Harper's stance on the war, but at least you have to admit his stance was consistent and honest.



			
				daniel h. said:
			
		

> He wants to expand the military--but only to play U.S.A. quisling, against the will of the majority.



Maybe he wants to expand the military for the same reasons that the Liberals AND the NDP supported military spending increases in the last election - because the CF is falling apart? Because we no longer are meaningful on the international stage because we can't back up our high-sounding words with action? 

I'll point out that without military expansion, we will be even more dependent on the hated, evil, baby-eating, theocratic, bogeyman USA than we are now - and not for overseas military operations, but simply to protect ourselves. It never ceases to amaze me how those who hate the US so much also oppose Canadian military spending - and, by that logic, would hand our defence over to those whom they hate so much....

As for the attack on Harper attending the Bilderberg conference, so did Martin.

All you've proven is that of the two options available to us, Conservative and Liberal (sorry, the NDP don't count), the Conservatives are no worse than the Liberals. And given the testimony coming out of the Gomery inquiry, the Liberals have lost any ethical standing in the public eye.

I'd rather take the unproven but consistent Conservatives over the proven criminals and liars that infest the Liberal party. Martin may not be personally involved, but the party he leads is as guilty as sin.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Apr 2005)

After looking at the list of attendees at the Bilderberg conference, I wonder what the fuss was about. These people are not the Illuminati (who don't hold public conferences anyway), and besides, isn't it interesting that people who have that kind of political and economic clout are interested in the ideas and opinions of Stephen Harper. George W Bush was also interested enough in Mr Harper to have a private meeting when he was in Canada. 

The Bilderbergers and George W Bush are aware at some level of the disconnect between Paul Martin's words and deeds (probably not to the level of detail we have here, since Canada only makes up @ 3% of the global market and has negligible military, political or diplomatic influence), and seem to have reacted accordingly.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Apr 2005)

Excellent response Guardian!


----------



## Gunnar (22 Apr 2005)

I sometimes hear the question, "Why are you a Liberal?" and
frankly, I have to laugh. Laugh and laugh, because perhaps this
person may tire of my laughing, and he will eventually wander off.
Sometimes I ponder seriously when I hear this question, because I'll
look around and around and there's nobody there asking the question.
Why am I a Liberal?

I am a Liberal because I believe everyone deserves a chance. And if
necessary, a second chance. And if, by the eighth or ninth chance,
this guy needs another chance, I mean, come on. This guy is due.

I am a Liberal because I believe in helping those in need. All of us,
you and I, have an obligation to those less fortunate. You go first,
okay? I'm a little short this week.

I am a Liberal because I believe in the equality of all people,
regardless of their race. That is why I think we should give free
medical degrees to minorities because, well, duh. Like any of those
types are going to make it through medical school.

I am a Liberal because I fervently believe in tolerance. Tolerance is
critical in our diverse society, and if you have a problem with that,
mister, then I will inform the authorities and I bet that after a few
hours in their "special room" you too will agree that
tolerance is critical.

I am a Liberal because I believe that we should take our noses out of
other people's bedrooms. I say we move the noses to their banks and
storage sheds and scout troops, and so forth.

I am a Liberal because I hold sacred freedom of the press, as well as
freedom of the TV and freedom of the movie. Where I draw the line is
freedom of the talk radio, and don't even get me started about that
damn Internet business. 

I am a Liberal because I recognize that education is important. Very,
very, extremely very important. We must increase spending on
education and enact important education reforms, such as eliminating
standardized tests. Because we can never hope to measure this
beautiful, elusive, important thing we call education.

I am a Liberal because I believe in the separation of church and
state. We must stop the religious extremists who want
school-sanctioned prayers. Now, you tell me - with all that chanting
and praying and incense-burning going on, how can our kids
concentrate on the big condom-and-banana midterm?

I am a Liberal because I believe in the rights of women, be they
lawyers or housewives or skanky interns. For too long women have been
the victims of discrimination, and we must target programs to help
these women, and also the various people who have descended from
women.

I am a Liberal because I believe in women's right to choose. I mean,
not a church school or a tax shelter, or something like that,
obviously. Let's be reasonable.

I am a Liberal because I believe in the rule of law. Or, at least,
lawyers. Because hey, according to my attorney, I could have been on
the Number 7 bus when it crashed yesterday. As far as you know.

I am a Liberal because I believe a healthy economy depends on good
jobs at good wages. So fork 'em over, you fat bastard boss man.

I am a Liberal because I believe the government should step in to
create good jobs when that fat bastard boss man moves my good job to
Mexico. Hey, I know! Maybe we can take all the money that boss man
spends on non-job-creating stuff, like solid gold yachts and mink
spats, and use that money to create jobs.

I am a Liberal because I fear the power of giant unrestrained
monopolies, such as Microsoft, Nike, Parker Brothers, Univac and the
Erie Canal Company. The government must wage an unrelenting, all-out
war to crush these scary monopolies to a pulp before they get too
powerful.

I am a Liberal because I believe in a strong military. Strong, yes,
but caring and thoughtful too, and ready to face new challenges. A
military that enjoys long strolls on the beach, cuddling in front of
a warm fire, unafraid to show its vulnerable side. Must be NS/DDF.

I am a Liberal because I believe there is too much violence in
society, especially in our schools. To avoid another Columbine
tragedy, we should have mellow "rap" sessions with at-risk
teens, such as the Goths. The violence will only end after the teen
Goths see that we adults really care, and are "hip" to
their groovy teen Goth scene.

I am a Liberal because I believe in campaign finance reform. Sadly,
our politics are dominated by advertisements, paid for by the
contributions of giant corporations. All too often, these drown out
legitimate grassroots opinions, like the kind heard on
TimeWarner-AOL-CNN, TimesCorp, or Disney-ABC.

I am a Liberal because I believe in public support of the arts. By
"the arts," I of course mean those things made by, or
excreted by, an artist of some sort. It is especially important that
art be provocative and take controversial stances, like opposing
Conrad Black, and so on.

I am a Liberal because I believe in the environment and conservation.
For instance, we must raise the price of gasoline, like they do in
Europe, to increase conservation. If we don't, there will soon be a
big gas shortage, and this will mean higher gasoline prices for you
and me. 

I am a Liberal because I detest greed. Especially the sickening greed
of those who struck it rich in the 1980s, and greedily refuse to give
me any of their stuff.

I am a Liberal because I... hey look! A new episode of Survivor!
Geez, I hope they don't vote off Jenna, she's my favorite.


----------



## larry Strong (22 Apr 2005)

Gunner, that would be funny, if it did not hit so close to home ;D


----------



## 043 (22 Apr 2005)

Really, who gives a Rat's *** what any politician says. They all talk out of their asses anyways.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Apr 2005)

Well you should since you swore an oath to follow them........


----------



## 043 (22 Apr 2005)

Ooooohhhhhhhh the loyalty line. I like that one.

But really, name a politician in the last 20 yrs that has been straight up front with anyone?????


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Apr 2005)

Mike Harris


----------



## 043 (22 Apr 2005)

Mike Harris?? You're kidding right?? Please tell the forum you are kidding.............................

Mike Harris, the same Mike Harris who resigned as premier to escape the Walkerton and Dudley George problems>


----------



## pronto (22 Apr 2005)

Uhhh - tell that to Mrs. Harris. Nasty divorce....


----------



## a_majoor (22 Apr 2005)

2023 said:
			
		

> Mike Harris?? You're kidding right?? Please tell the forum you are kidding.............................
> 
> Mike Harris, the same Mike Harris who resigned as premier to escape the Walkerton and Dudley George problems>



Mr Harris did not have to "escape" Walkerton, the perps were tried and convicted.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Apr 2005)

2023 said:
			
		

> Ooooohhhhhhhh the loyalty line. I like that one.
> 
> But really, name a politician in the last 20 yrs that has been straight up front with anyone?????



Preston Manning


----------



## 043 (22 Apr 2005)

Walkerton - 2000
Harris Resigns - 2002
Walkerton Charges - 2004 or 2005 I beleive?


----------



## 043 (22 Apr 2005)

The one person who was not in court Monday, but who many still blame as the main reason the tragedy happened, was former Tory Premier Mike Harris.

Harris and his cabinet were the people who imposed unprecedented cutbacks on public services in the 1990s, despite dire warnings, and did so less for the good of the province as a whole than to finance tax cuts that conferred handsome benefits on upper income taxpayers.

It's worth remembering, as the Koebels fade away to serve their tap-on-the-wrist sentences, what the commission of inquiry by Justice Dennis O'Connor concluded after his investigation of the tragedy. Here are two key findings.

"¢ Ontario's Tory government failed to put safeguards in place when water-testing was privatized in 1996, despite numerous warnings. 

"¢ Tory cutbacks at the province's environment ministry undermined the province's ability to deal with problems at Walkerton's water utility. 

Who knows how many people, up to and including Harris and his cabinet, bear as much or more moral responsibility for the Walkerton affair as the Koebels. But none of them will be called to account. NUPGE


----------



## pronto (22 Apr 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Preston Manning



Hmm, good ol' change-my-'do-when-I-hit-ottawa, I-won't-use-stornoway-wait-I-guess-I-will, I-hate-pensions-no-wait-I-LOVE-pensions Preston?


----------



## canadianblue (22 Apr 2005)

> Preston Manning



I've gotta agree with you on that. I watched a biography on Preston Manning, and he was probably one of the best politicians we had. I remember he was sitting next to an African or Carribean immigrant on a plane who was a recent immigrant and needed a job, and ended up making him his car driver. But no such person will ever be successfull as a politician. I don't think I could ever be a politician, CF for me now, Police Force or Fire Department later.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Apr 2005)

...OK, anyone who hasn't changed their mind or told a little white lie in the last 7 years ,...post here.


----------



## 043 (22 Apr 2005)

Sign me up, but I am not running for office either


----------



## pronto (22 Apr 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ...OK, anyone who hasn't changed their mind or told a little white lie in the last 7 years ,...post here.



I think maybe you are all missing the point - there is not a single politician who has been upfront. None, Nyet, Zip, Ziltch, Nada, zero. My point - it is the nature of the beast, and the sooner we all recognise and acknowledge that, the better off and happier we will all be. Do not expect a politician to be your friend, to acknowledge your work, to tell the truth all the time, or to not be politcially expedient. This goes for large "P" politicians, and for small "p" ones as well. The party apparatchiks at 101 Colonel By Drive are included.

For every "up front" politician you name, I, and anyone else, will easily be able to think of a lie, untruth, mis-direction, or flip-flop. THIS IS NOT ALL BAD, by the way. That's what they do, and what we expect them to do, and what they need to do to govern in our system. Just be aware and never think that one is "better" than another. 

If you look for the "ideal" politician, you will not find one, and you will inevitably be dissapointed and bitter. Rely on yourselves and your compadres, and you will be fine - heck - happy even

If this sounds jaundiced - too bad!  :-* It is based on 25 years of observation, 7 years of experience in teh forces, and a lot of being dissapointed until I learned. Ask a member of the airborne regiment what they think about politicians (in uniform or out)... Just remember to stand back...   ;D

Cheers all


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Apr 2005)

2023 said:
			
		

> Ooooohhhhhhhh the loyalty line. I like that one.
> 
> But really, name a politician in the last 20 yrs that has been straight up front with anyone?????



Ed Broadbent....he was just unfortunate enough to choose the wrong party

Kat


----------



## pronto (22 Apr 2005)

Ahhhh - maybe I AM jaundiced... I would like your thoughts!


----------



## Canuck_25 (22 Apr 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Preston Manning



 Wow, the man sounds like he is on helium ;D


----------



## pronto (22 Apr 2005)

Here's what I said on the thread just split off... I would like your opinions. I am curious to see if I am the only one with this opinion on politicians in general:


I think maybe you are all missing the point - there is not a single politician who has been upfront. None, Nyet, Zip, Ziltch, Nada, zero. My point - it is the nature of the beast, and the sooner we all recognise and acknowledge that, the better off and happier we will all be. Do not expect a politician to be your friend, to acknowledge your work, to tell the truth all the time, or to not be politcially expedient. This goes for large "P" politicians, and for small "p" ones as well. The party apparatchiks at 101 Colonel By Drive are included.

For every "up front" politician you name, I, and anyone else, will easily be able to think of a lie, untruth, mis-direction, or flip-flop. THIS IS NOT ALL BAD, by the way. That's what they do, and what we expect them to do, and what they need to do to govern in our system. Just be aware and never think that one is "better" than another. 

If you look for the "ideal" politician, you will not find one, and you will inevitably be dissapointed and bitter. Rely on yourselves and your compadres, and you will be fine - heck - happy even

If this sounds jaundiced - too bad!   It is based on 25 years of observation, 7 years of experience in teh forces, and a lot of being dissapointed until I learned. Ask a member of the airborne regiment what they think about politicians (in uniform or out)... Just remember to stand back...   

Cheers all


----------



## larry Strong (22 Apr 2005)

Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> Wow, the man sounds like he is on helium ;D



What does, how a person sounds have to do with his integrity?


----------



## 043 (22 Apr 2005)

pronto said:
			
		

> Here's what I said on the thread just split off... I would like your opinions. I am curious to see if I am the only one with this opinion on politicians in general:
> 
> 
> I think maybe you are all missing the point - there is not a single politician who has been upfront. None, Nyet, Zip, Ziltch, Nada, zero. My point - it is the nature of the beast, and the sooner we all recognise and acknowledge that, the better off and happier we will all be. Do not expect a politician to be your friend, to acknowledge your work, to tell the truth all the time, or to not be politcially expedient. This goes for large "P" politicians, and for small "p" ones as well. The party apparatchiks at 101 Colonel By Drive are included.
> ...



So the best liar makes the best politician???


----------



## pronto (22 Apr 2005)

Bloody Good question! ... Maybe the one who lies the least? Serves the most people? Skates the closest to the edge?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (22 Apr 2005)

2023 said:
			
		

> So the best liar makes the best politician???



How about the one that doesn't exist?

IMHO, the less government interferes in private citizen's lives, the better.  Moreover, an increase in government invariably leads to an increase in bureaucracy and waste (best case) and corruption (i.e., Adscam).  The Liberals have led an unprecedented (in Canadian history) expansion and centralization of government and political power and we're faced with the predictable results (see also "Maple Leaf Revolution" thread).  The NDP wants to _increase _this further: only the Conservatives offer hope of reversing the trend (the Liberals have _proven _that they're opposed to less government and the NDP doesn't even claim to support it).


----------



## 2 Cdo (22 Apr 2005)

I have just two questions, when did being a politician change to become synonymous with being a liar?and why do we think it is acceptable for them to be that way? 
I think that people should re-think their views on politicians in general. Using a simple litmus test to judge whether a politician is trustworthy or not, ask yourself "Would I trust this person to take care of my children?"
It's time to change politics in this country, no more professional politicians. These sorts have never really contributed ANYTHING to society. They are the worst sort of leeches out there. They are like a virus, they only exist to feed themselves and make more little politicians.(Trudeau comes to mind, as well as Manning)
Again though I will reiterate that ANYONE who would vote Lieberal after this mess should be locked up for their own protection because they are obviously not mentally capable of taking care of themselves. Also any liberal supporters please post your home address and leave the doors unlocked because it is obvious that you don't mind being stole from, I will arrange for some young thieving punks to come clean your place out! 
Heres hoping for an end to the liberal party.


----------



## pronto (22 Apr 2005)

2Cdo: Agree with you on your points - my neighbor is a liberal - will pass on your warmest wishes for future endeavours!  heh heh...

As to your question - I think Politician became synonomous with liar during Trudeau's reign. That's my recollection anyhow.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Apr 2005)

Has anyone here ever actually held a position of more stature than Platoon 2 i/c in an infantry unit?   It's easy to lambaste politicians never having been one yourself.

I have repeated this several times here, but apparently it bears saying again.   I remember as a lowly courier thinking how rotten my bosses were and how I couldn't fathom most of the decisions they made.   After a year of pounding the streets, I was elevated to operations manager, and very rapidly, my "I would never do that if I was in charge" attitude was transformed, as my eyes were opened to some pretty interesting realities, not to mention plain old human nature.   I showed up late - because I could, and because I worked long hours; longer than many of my staff, or so it seemed.   Had a lot of responsibility too - more than my couriers who had a considerable amount themselves, but all their responsibilities were also mine, in addition to my own.   Stopped giving a damn about the quality of water in the cooler because I knew there was no way to change it.  I had complained loud and long as a long suffering employee that we never got the water replaced, not because I really cared, but because I felt I was entitled to it because it was available.  Sound like a Canadian taxpayer to you?  As manager, I told one of the couriers to fill the old jugs with tap water because I found I had other priorities. In short - I lied to the staff.  Didn't feel bad at all, either.

I rather suspect, never having been a politician myself, that it is quite a different world.   I recently sat on two committees within the regiment, and saw some of the more "political" side of the house, and this in a reserve infantry battalion of 200 persons.   I've been administrative assistant at a major bank and saw more of the same.

I suspect most of the more vocal critics here haven't really had any responsibilities which required "political" handling.   To them, I can only say that you will always be disappointed in the process.   Whoever said "get used to it" in response to this discussion was correct.   If all you've ever done is be Number Two Rifleman, you can talk til you're blue in the face, you're not going to make anyone change their minds.

I still like our system much better than those adopted by some of our adversaries in the last 100 years.


----------



## aesop081 (22 Apr 2005)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> ....... when did being a politician change to become synonymous with being a liar?



What year did Jean Chretien first get elected    ;D


----------



## Uberman (22 Apr 2005)

I tend to agree with Pronto - its a chicken / egg thing. Did the politicians become this way due to the circumstances they inherited or did they start out this way and create the circumstances. If one looks at the political history between Quebec and the rest of Canada, it's pretty obvious that this type of scandal was just waiting to happen - it's just luck of the draw that it happened on the Liberal watch. The separatists could have held the referendum on the Tory watch and created the "keep Canada together at any cost" emergency that directly led to pumping Fed money into Quebec to secure them at the polls. To the Tory's credit though, they might just have told PQ where to shove it. Personally I think PQ keeps this charade going to ensure preferential treatment like the spoiled kid who gets the extra scoop of ice cream so he wont cause a scene.

 The Feds and PQ have been doing this tug of war since Canada's inception. The reason this particular scandal got to where it did, is most likely due to Cretiens turning a wilful blind eye to his bureaucracy and tearing down the bureaucratic watchdogs that Mulrooney had put in place (as Mulrooney didn't trust them to see them) Cretien wanted to "work with" the bureaucracy - not babysit it.   Had those watchdogs been in place, Cretien would have had a better idea of how rampant and carelessly the money was being spent. Maybe he knew about every single transaction and well as Martin, but I highly doubt that either of them paid too much attention to the Sponsorship program as long as the political ship had clear and navigable waters, if anything - far less attention than the opposition parties would have us believe.   

To put us through the huge cost of another election right now is fiscally irresponsible and would establish very little. If anything I'm more disappointed with Harper's approach to this after Martin's speech. Harper's a man of contraditions and hypocrisy - who knows what he'd pull out of his red neck magic bag. The rag tag buch they have in the party as a result of the Alliance's corporate take over of the Tory party remains their biggest problem; still walks talks and smells like Alliance.   As with PQ's Duchenne, what possible good could a separatist and a Tory combo do for Canada.   

As for the comment that Canadians are predominantly stupid and forgetful therefore they will forget about the sponsorship program is an unfair jab at Joe Lunchbox. If anything, the inquiry going on and on and on and on will bore the general public and desensitize them to the whole thing - just like the OJ trial. In doing do it minimizes the issues - so if Harper thinks kicking the sponsorship thing around for the duration of an election is going to get brownie points, I think he's sadly mistaken. Joe lunchbox will simply associate Harper with the long and boring Crucifixion of the sponsorship scandal. 

IMO the Liberals, as crappy as they've been hitherto, will probably do the best job for now as they will be like a week #1 recruit during kit inspection. - too GD scared to step out of line.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Apr 2005)

Quote,
Harper's a man of contraditions and hypocrisy - who knows what he'd pull out of his red neck magic bag.

..the first part of that sentence REQUIRES proof before posting and the second part shows a lack of class on your part.


----------



## Canadian Sig (22 Apr 2005)

Some of us red necks might take offence to that!  ;D


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Apr 2005)

That sums up the whole state of political debate in this country, Bruce.   It's out of the hands of the intellectuals and into the hands of the "commoners" for lack of a better term.   They think words like "redneck" or monickers like "Papa Doc Crouton" are actual methods of stimulating poltical discussion.   Canadians don't know how, based on most of the comments in most forums I've seen, including radio shows and newspaper letters to the edtor, to discuss politics dispassionately and above all, intelligently.   Stuff like "lie-berals" just shuts down any possibility of reasoned discussion.   It's why one is well advised not to bother trying.   The sarcasm could be cut with a knife, and who wants to bother, really.   Most people in these parts seem not to be up to the job.


----------



## 2 Cdo (22 Apr 2005)

So Michael stealing from the public and lying about it are traits that you admire in a person? Some politicians may work long hours and have to travel away from home( wow that sounds like my job, only for a lot less pay and just not the same accommodations) big f#cking deal. All I am asking for is a little INTEGRITY from our elected  officials, and failing that maybe some sort of recall mechanism for those who continually ignore the electorate that put them in office.
To be honest, I don't think that is asking too much. But to simply say"Oh well thats the way it is" is completely asinine and shows a level of indifference that is scary.


----------



## TCBF (22 Apr 2005)

" Stuff like "lie-berals" just shuts down any possibility of reasoned discussion.  It's why one is well advised not to bother trying.  The sarcasm could be cut with a knife, and who wants to bother, really.  Most people in these parts seem not to be up to the job."

Pretty much on the money. 

Trying to get across a logical political point here has to be a labour of love.

We will get the government we deserve, and our just desserts in the end.  The sheeple will moan "No one warned us..."

Tom


----------



## 2 Cdo (22 Apr 2005)

Mr Dorosh, your arrogance is really showing today.

"Most people in these parts seem not to be up to the job."

Is there an implication that you are up to the job of engaging in a political discussion without being sarcastic? Sorry, not buying that. There are two subjects that can never be argued/debated without personal prejudices coming out loud and clear, religion and politics!


----------



## Uberman (22 Apr 2005)

*On the contradictions and hypocrisy - * 

Ottawa â â€ Stephen Harper came under fire yesterday from anti-racism groups and a member of his Conservative Party for what they say was a bid to cash in politically on the Holocaust and the internment of Japanese Canadians more than 60 years ago.

"It's just trying to score political points and I don't think that it's appropriate to do that with this particular issue," said Pat Case of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation. "Mr. Harper could learn a lesson or two from his own words," Tamara Kronis said. "The internment of Japanese Canadians and the legacy of 'None is too many' reminds us that there was a time in Canadian history when it was acceptable to discriminate against those minorities and to deny them equal treatment."

Ms. Kronis said that, as a Tory, she was "disappointed in Mr. Harper's lack of leadership and judgment on this issue, and in the insensitivity that is evident in his remarks."


I think that's where we should draw the line, and I don't want to get into the polygamy debate - but I fear if we do this, the next thing on the Liberal agenda will be polygamy and who knows what else," Harper said in a news conference. "Polygamy is ok for cows." - Stephen Harper


"This is bizarre, way out there," said a senior adviser to Nova Scotia Premier John Hamm ... "The strategy has got our political people just shaking their heads. Is this where you draw the line, really? How about dealing with issues that really affect our lives." 
"Harper's gay marriage strategy exposes rift among Conservatives, Canadian Press, Jan. 27, 2005

"And make no mistake. Canada is not a bilingual country." Stephen Harper, "Official Bilingualism: The God That Failed," NCC 
Online,


"Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society," says Stephen Harper, president of the National Citizens' Coalition. "It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff." BC Report, January 11, 1999

"Stephen Harper - the leader of the Canadian Alliance, Canada's Official Opposition - trotted out a conspiracy theory this week so loopy he risks never being taken seriously again." Globe and Mail, September 6, 2003.

Harper's words: "We aren't going to let these guys off the hook ... They wanted to introduce this through back channels. They didn't want to come to Parliament, they didn't want to go to the Canadian people and be honest. They had the courts do it for them. They put the judges in they wanted, then they failed to appeal, failed to fight the case in court."


On Atlantic Canadians:

"There is a dependence in the region that breeds a culture of defeatism." www.cbc.ca, May 30, 2002.

I hope that establishes sufficient proof. As for the "red neck magic bag" well, perhaps ignorant or small minded or both would have been a better adjective. You are right, using terms such as red neck weakens my points and makes me look like I'm attacking him personally as opposed to his opinions. We'll keep our sticks on the ice.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Apr 2005)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> So Michael stealing from the public and lying about it are traits that you admire in a person? Some politicians may work long hours and have to travel away from home( wow that sounds like my job, only for a lot less pay and just not the same accommodations) big f#cking deal. All I am asking for is a little INTEGRITY from our elected   officials, and failing that maybe some sort of recall mechanism for those who continually ignore the electorate that put them in office.
> To be honest, I don't think that is asking too much. But to simply say"Oh well thats the way it is" is completely asinine and shows a level of indifference that is scary.



Indifference?  20 million voting Canadians can't be wrong...or shall I say 10 million of the ones that don't bother to vote.

I am not defending anyone, nor saying things should be the way they are, I am saying I seriously doubt your ability to understand or comprehend how politics work, or what motivates politicians to make their decisions.  I also feel you have no right to call names, rant, pout, cry or whine never having been one.  You may take exception with those decisions and make intelligent suggestions as to why you feel they are criminal, misguided or even in rare instances brilliant.  But you have as little right as I do to paint with a broad brush every politician that has held office in Canada in the last 50 years, since you really have as little clue as most of the rest of us, and as such, your opinion is not only meaningless, but dangerously uninformed.

Is anyone here a card-carrying member of a political party?  And active in their party, not just card carrying?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Apr 2005)

So Uberman, what was wrong with his statements?  If they are genuinely believed by him - and by voters (I think he was on the money, judging by your out-of-context quotes) - is he not representing his constituents?  Or in other words, doing what he is supposed to do, whether you agree with him individually or not?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Apr 2005)

Quote,
well, perhaps ignorant or small minded  
...yea, much better. :

Quote,
I hope that establishes sufficient proof

...Proof?. ???...you never took any interest in legal matters, did you?


----------



## Uberman (22 Apr 2005)

_It's out of the hands of the intellectuals and into the hands of the "commoners" for lack of a better term.   They think words like "redneck" or monickers like "Papa Doc Crouton" are actual methods of stimulating poltical discussion.   Canadians don't know how, based on most of the comments in most forums I've seen, including radio shows and newspaper letters to the edtor, to discuss politics dispassionately and above all, intelligently. _ 

I doubt you intentionally meant to cut yourself with your own sword, but referring to "us" as "commoners" commits the very same "intellectual offence" you charged "Canadians" with. Aside from the logical fallacy inherent in stating "Canadians don't know . . . " especially if you are a Canadian, the very thought that politics should be a dispassionate debate is in stark contrast of every western democracy in existence.   I will accept that name calling has no place in a debate, however, your comments offer nothing to the essence of the thread nor the substance of the debate other than to say that Canadians don't get the point.   For the record, I have a degree in political studies and a law degree. I most certainly know how to debate intelligently.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Apr 2005)

..and would the "proof" you showed us get a conviction??        I didn't think so.....


----------



## 2 Cdo (22 Apr 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Indifference?   20 million voting Canadians can't be wrong...or shall I say 10 million of the ones that don't bother to vote.
> 
> I am not defending anyone, nor saying things should be the way they are, I am saying I seriously doubt your ability to understand or comprehend how politics work, or what motivates politicians to make their decisions.   I also feel you have no right to call names, rant, pout, cry or whine never having been one.   You may take exception with those decisions and make intelligent suggestions as to why you feel they are criminal, misguided or even in rare instances brilliant.   But you have as little right as I do to paint with a broad brush every politician that has held office in Canada in the last 50 years, since you really have as little clue as most of the rest of us, and as such, your opinion is not only meaningless, but dangerously uninformed.
> 
> Is anyone here a card-carrying member of a political party?   And active in their party, not just card carrying?


So now you insult my intelligence saying you doubt I can "understand or comprehend" how politics work. My opinion is "not only meaningless, but dangerously uninformed"
Read your own post  "have no right to call names, rant, pout, cry or whine". 
You don't know me from Adam, don't know my education level, don't know my occupational experience, yet you leap to such profound conclusions. Tell me how well you did on your mind reading course! Start practicing what you preach  about generalizations and insults or feel free to p#ss off.


----------



## Canadian Sig (22 Apr 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> That sums up the whole state of political debate in this country, Bruce.   It's out of the hands of the intellectuals and into the hands of the "commoners" for lack of a better term.   They think words like "redneck" or momonikersike "Papa Doc Crouton" are actual methods of stimulating popoliticaliscussion.   Canadians don't know how, based on most of the comments in most forums I've seen, including radio shows and newspaper letters to the edteditoro discuss politics dispassionately and above all, intelligently.   Stuff like "lie-berals" just shuts down any possibility of reasoned discussion.   It's why one is well advised not to bother trying.   The sarcasm could be cut with a knife, and who wants to bother, really.   Most people in these parts seem not to be up to the job.



    Is there some reason that the debate should'shouldn'tthe hands of the commoners? Those commoners are the pepole who have to live with the elected government. As for words like red neck; I have an excellent post secondary education and I continue to expand it while serving full time in the military, yet I have no qualms referinreferringelf as a "red neck". So I guess education is'nt lisn'td to the "intellectuals" -roll eyes-.We (in this country) don't discuss politics dispatidispassionatelye politics are a pasionate topic. There are great differences in the way this country sees itself and in the way it thinks from coast to coast and those differing viewpoints can cause debate, friction and sometimes even fights. God forbid they lead to some innocent name calling. Just my Dos centavos


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Apr 2005)

Uberman said:
			
		

> For the record, I have a degree in political studies and a law degree. I most certainly know how to debate intelligently.



Your other post really didn't prove that.  You regugitated a bunch of quotes and left them lying in the sun like a dead zebra.


----------



## Uberman (22 Apr 2005)

Bruce, this was your comment - 

Quote,
Harper's a man of contradictions and hypocrisy - who knows what he'd pull out of his red neck magic bag.

..the first part of that sentence REQUIRES proof before posting and the second part shows a lack of class on your part.

For his contradictions and hypocrisy, I provided news articles tending to show that his comments tend to either contradict his party's platform / policies / etc. or have the effect of calling other parties into question on statements / policies Harper holds for himself. As for whether I could secure a criminal conviction based on these hearsay statement, I'll leave that to a court of law. As for whether my collection of news clips provides me adequate foundation to state my belief that Harper contradicts himself and his party and is hypocritical - I have no doubt.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Apr 2005)

2 CDO,
Here we go again, please read and digest before you post, here i will highlight the parts to pay attention to.

Quote from Michael Dorosh,
   But you   have as little right as I   do to paint with a broad brush every politician that has held office in Canada in the last 50 years, since you really have as little clue as most of the rest of us, and as such, your opinion is not only meaningless, but dangerously uninformed.

Please stop taking everything as a personal attack, its getting long in the tooth.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Apr 2005)

Canadian Sig said:
			
		

> Is there some reason that the debate should'shouldn'tthe hands of the commoners? Those commoners are the pepole who have to live with the elected government. As for words like red neck; I have an excellent post secondary education and I continue to expand it while serving full time in the military, yet I have no qualms referinreferringelf as a "red neck". So I guess education is'nt lisn'td to the "intellectuals" -roll eyes-.We (in this country) don't discuss politics dispatidispassionatelye politics are a pasionate topic. There are great differences in the way this country sees itself and in the way it thinks from coast to coast and those differing viewpoints can cause debate, friction and sometimes even fights. God forbid they lead to some innocent name calling. Just my Dos centavos



I count myself firmly among those who "don't get it."   That's the point.   See my post in the PM thread.   We're so busy picking at flyshit, we forget to talk about the pepper.   

Yes, God should forbid "innocent name calling", so should we all.   It accomplishes zero.

Go back and read this post again, inserting the words "hey dickhead" as my opening sentence, tell me what effect it has.


----------



## Uberman (22 Apr 2005)

Michael, in my first post I attempted to provide some political opinions as to how Canada got to this point in time. But for the red herring, I've not received any response to the gravaman, or essence, of my post. (That will learn me for speaking venacular) I would be greatly interested in hearing your perspective with respect to whether we are in an "isolated incident" or the end result of a 200 year old time bomb. Cheers


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (22 Apr 2005)

Uberman said:
			
		

> *On the contradictions and hypocrisy - *
> 
> Ottawa â â€ Stephen Harper came under fire yesterday from anti-racism groups and a member of his Conservative Party for what they say was a bid to cash in politically on the Holocaust and the internment of Japanese Canadians more than 60 years ago.
> 
> ...


Umm, so some wingnuts call him a hypocrite.



> I think that's where we should draw the line, and I don't want to get into the polygamy debate - but I fear if we do this, the next thing on the Liberal agenda will be polygamy and who knows what else," Harper said in a news conference. "Polygamy is ok for cows." - Stephen Harper


He's against polygamy: this make him a hypocrite?  I don't ever recall him saying he was in favour of it.



> "This is bizarre, way out there," said a senior adviser to Nova Scotia Premier John Hamm ... "The strategy has got our political people just shaking their heads. Is this where you draw the line, really? How about dealing with issues that really affect our lives."
> "Harper's gay marriage strategy exposes rift among Conservatives, Canadian Press, Jan. 27, 2005


So the premier of Nova Scotia has a different view of gay marriage: how is this contradictory or hypocritical?



> "And make no mistake. Canada is not a bilingual country." Stephen Harper, "Official Bilingualism: The God That Failed," NCC
> Online,


He claims that Official Billigualism is a failure: there are MANY that would agree with him.  Not sure what how he's contradicting himself or being a "redneck" (which is a rather discriminatory term in itself, isn't it?) ...



> "Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society," says Stephen Harper, president of the National Citizens' Coalition. "It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff." BC Report, January 11, 1999


I tend to agree: if we weren't slaves to the socialist/authoritarian ideals of "human rights commissions," we might actually be able to protect human rights.



> "Stephen Harper - the leader of the Canadian Alliance, Canada's Official Opposition - trotted out a conspiracy theory this week so loopy he risks never being taken seriously again." Globe and Mail, September 6, 2003.


Oh, so some hack at the Globe and Mail slanders him: case closed, I guess (no wonder they call you guys _sheeple_).



> Harper's words: "We aren't going to let these guys off the hook ... They wanted to introduce this through back channels. They didn't want to come to Parliament, they didn't want to go to the Canadian people and be honest. They had the courts do it for them. They put the judges in they wanted, then they failed to appeal, failed to fight the case in court."


God forbid he'd say something accurate but damaging to the Liberal Party:  maybe you are beholden to the "what's bad for the Liberal Party is bad for Canada" contention?   http://andrewcoyne.com/2005/04/will-work-for-judicial-appointments.php



> On Atlantic Canadians:
> 
> "There is a dependence in the region that breeds a culture of defeatism." www.cbc.ca, May 30, 2002.


Someone had to say it!  If you pay people not to work guess what will eventually happen: they're aren't going to want to work.



> I hope that establishes sufficient proof.


It is suffiicient truth that Liberals and Socialist are trying to paint him as a rednieck, but absent any evidence, is slander.



> As for the "red neck magic bag" well, perhaps ignorant or small minded or both would have been a better adjective. You are right, using terms such as red neck weakens my points and makes me look like I'm attacking him personally as opposed to his opinions. We'll keep our sticks on the ice.


You are attacking him personally: you are calling him a redneck (or small-minded, or whatever other euphamism you want to use for slander) that has no basis.  All that your post indicates is that the only proof that you have to offer that he's a redneck is that other people have said it!


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Apr 2005)

If all Harper said was "Canada is not a bilingual country", well, he's RIGHT!  In practice, we are not.  I don't speak French or read French, and can't recall the last time I've seen anything in French that I needed to be able to interpret.  In Alberta, it is as if French doesn't exist.  How is that bilingual?


----------



## Uberman (22 Apr 2005)

My thinking is that Harper would definately told Quebec where to place their referendum. For the record, I think he probably should have. I would miss Montreal though.


----------



## onecat (22 Apr 2005)

Micheal thanks I love the term "lie-berals" it so sums what up the party has become.   The party ( e.i. the Liberal party) has been in government too long and to use a common term; has grown fat with power and corruption. Martin maybe the man who allowed the Canadian the chance to look into their crimes, but he sure isn't the man to fix it.

It just too bad that there no other center party in Canada to take it place.   Although maybe a crushing defeat might force the Liberal party under go reforms and then maybe I can vote them again.   Until that time, they will never get my vote; and how any one can still vote for Martin or that matter support the party is beyond me.

"lie-berals" I'm going to have too make t-shirts and bumper sticks.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Apr 2005)

radiohead said:
			
		

> Until that time, they will never get my vote; and how any one can still vote for Martin or that matter support the party is beyond me.



Sad thing is, you'll never know why it is beyond your comprehension.  Good news - ignorance is bliss.


----------



## Canadian Sig (22 Apr 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Sad thing is, you'll never know why it is beyond your comprehension.   Good news - ignorance is bliss.



   What is with you calling everybodys intellegence into question today? Are you a staunch liberal whos pi*sed because the big boss is looking bad in the polls or did your neighbor get up and relieve himself in your cornflakes this morning?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (22 Apr 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Sad thing is, you'll never know why it is beyond your comprehension.  Good news - ignorance is bliss.



Actually that last phrase answers his question ...


----------



## pronto (22 Apr 2005)

Got called off to an interminable meeting, just back now... God help me....

Interesting debate all! I think the name-calling a little puerile, but some really good points. Thanks, I am beginning to feel less isolated in  my thoughts and positions. Interestingly enough, I am seeing that the Liberal supporters and conservative supporters are all relatively similar in stance and attitude. Actually, unsurprising given that the majority of respondants seem to be of the opinion that either we get the government we deserve, or all politicians are the same, and we should just hold our noses and vote for whomever we feel stinks and lies the least. Two not dissimilar camps!

As a matter of interest, I was on a telecon this afternoon with someone relatively senior from the US, and innocently (heh heh >) asked them what their opinion was. They are a staunch republican supporter, and subscribe to the "who stinks less, gets my vote"

Based on the (mostly) reasoned discourse on the board here, my guess is that we are not getting the government we deserve!

Thanks


----------



## Gunner (22 Apr 2005)

> my guess is that we are not getting the government we deserve!



Nor are we getting the government we demand!  Apathetic voters begate apathetic politicians.


----------



## aesop081 (22 Apr 2005)

Gunner said:
			
		

> Nor are we getting the government we demand!   Apathetic voters begate apathetic politicians.



I may be far off but i think that we have apathetic voters because a good portion of the voting public feels they have a lack of options ( by that i mean that one politician is no better than the other).  Of course thats just my opinion.  I took political science in university and this is something that was discussed very often.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (22 Apr 2005)

pronto said:
			
		

> I think maybe you are all missing the point - there is not a single politician who has been upfront. None, Nyet, Zip, Ziltch, Nada, zero. My point - it is the nature of the beast, and the sooner we all recognise and acknowledge that, the better off and happier we will all be.



Are all politicians liars or is it that we just keep_ re-electing_ the liars?


----------



## Zipper (22 Apr 2005)

I think there is a basis for both. In order to get elected and stay there, you have to tell the people what they want to hear. If that requires a lie, then off to the lie they go as long as they get re-elected.


----------



## Gunner (22 Apr 2005)

> I may be far off but i think that we have apathetic voters because a good portion of the voting public feels they have a lack of options ( by that i mean that one politician is no better than the other).   Of course thats just my opinion.   I took political science in university and this is something that was discussed very often.



There are options and for a democracy to work, its citizens must be involved and hold their representatives accountable for their parties actions.   Think of how alienated the West is after having been continually shut out of Central Canada government.   Reform wanted to change the way Canadian politics was played but they never received any media support and in the end had to water down the parties values in an attempt to attract the main stream voter.   I hold the "free press" that we alledgedly have for not holding the government accountable and too cozy of a relationship with the Liberal party of Canada.   Remember Maclean's magazine two elections ago (Canadian Alliance - How Scary?).   Where are the headlines (Liberals - How corrupt?).   

Here's the latest poll off Bourque.ca



> Pollara : Con 35% Lib 31% Ndp 18% (ntl) Lib 39% Con 38% Nd 19% (ont)



What the heck are you easterners smoking in Ontario?   I shake my head at how you can allow this gang of thieves to continue sticking their hands in our pockets in the name of federalism.


----------



## aesop081 (22 Apr 2005)

Gunner said:
			
		

> There are options and for a democracy to work, its citizens must be involved and hold their representatives accountable for their parties actions.   Think of how alienated the West is after having been continually shut out of Central Canada government.   Reform wanted to change the way Canadian politics was played but they never received any media support and in the end had to water down the parties values in an attempt to attract the main stream voter.   I hold the "free press" that we alledgedly have for not holding the government accountable and too cozy of a relationship with the Liberal party of Canada.   Remember Maclean's magazine two elections ago (Canadian Alliance - How Scary?).   Where are the headlines (Liberals - How corrupt?).



Gunner, i couldnt agree more with what you said.  I was just stating an observation i have made trough long discussions on the subject.  Yes i see somewhat of a liberal bias in canadian mainstream media but it is nowhere near the openly "anti-liberal" sentiment you see on US network TV.  howver, you make a very valid point and i would go as far as saying that one of the greatest ricks to vanadian democracy is the lack of popular participation.  If we are to have an election soon and the turnout is low......what kind of a mandate would the government have ?


----------



## Gunner (22 Apr 2005)

aesop081,

Maybe there is more that society could learn from a simple book such as "Starship Troopers" outlining the responsibilities of being a citizen of a country vice the mainstream focus on the rights of being a citizen.    

Alas, I think most of the male population just thinks of Starship Troopers as a movie with a good shower scene.   :

Cheers,


----------



## aesop081 (22 Apr 2005)

Gunner said:
			
		

> aesop081,
> 
> Maybe there is more that society could learn from a simple book such as "Starship Troopers" outlining the responsibilities of being a citizen of a country vice the mainstream focus on the rights of being a citizen.
> 
> ...



I absolutely agree.  Maybe its a subject for another thread but i firmly beleive that today's society is too "rights" based.  I think people forget that the price for having those rights is fulfilling obligations and duties as citizens of a democracy.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Apr 2005)

>I most certainly know how to debate intelligently.

Then I assume you're intelligent enough to understand what rhetoric is, and intelligent enough to recognize that some people object to uncomfortable truths and object to how those truths might be used in any other way than to further the "permitted" narratives to which those people subscribe.


----------



## Zipper (22 Apr 2005)

I guess it comes down too...                ...the Liberal's got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Past governments did not. Doesn't mean they didn't have their hands in there too.

The reason that "central" Canada does not sway easily is because they are looking at the whole picture of what the "conservative" party and Harper represents as a whole. And they say no. Big shocker? Not.

Choices in an election? Few if any.


----------



## Glorified Ape (22 Apr 2005)

Gunner said:
			
		

> What the heck are you easterners smoking in Ontario?   I shake my head at how you can allow this gang of thieves to continue sticking their hands in our pockets in the name of federalism.



Ah, the old "crap on Ontario" routine - because that hasn't gotten old or anything. If the West spent half as much time breeding/attracting immigrants as they do complaining, you'd be in a much better position to influence elections. As an Ontarian (living outside Ontario presently) I can tell you my take: I can vote for the Liberals, knowing their thievery and self-serving idiocy or I can vote for the Conservatives, knowing that I disagree with 75% of their platform and question whether the remaining 25% is likely to ever see the light of day. I'd love to serve in a CF with the type of funding that the Conservatives promise but what has to be reconciled with that is whether I'd love to live in a country with the foreign policy and social repercussions that would likely follow a Conservative government. It comes down to voting for my wallet or my conscience, in which case I'm inclined to pick the latter. 

I hate what the Libs have done and how they've behaved, but there's alot they've done that I agree with - namely gay marriage, staying out of Iraq, rejecting BMD, forgiving debt, decriminalizing marijuana, etc. I acknowledge the legitimacy of arguments for/against each of those, so lets not get into a giant debate about each. There are things the Conservatives push for that I'd like to see, I just can't reconcile myself to accepting all the crap I wouldn't want to see coming with it. 



			
				Zipper said:
			
		

> I think there is a basis for both. In order to get elected and stay there, you have to tell the people what they want to hear. If that requires a lie, then off to the lie they go as long as they get re-elected.



If politicians were honest about what they would have to do to get done what the populous wants them to get done, they'd never be elected. If politicians realistically stated what they could get done, they'd never get elected. It's like advertising - if beer/liquor companies showed people vomitting everywhere, making asses of themselves, fighting, being impotent, descending into alcoholism, and waking up with horrible hangovers they wouldn't sell as much booze, as realistic as the ad may be. 

The population (including myself) is largely ignorant of what the political process is really like, what's possible, and what it takes to operate therein. As such, the politicians paint a picture, lie, and try to make it look appealing enough that they can actually get in a position to do something. I don't blame politicians for lying much of the time - what we want from them and what they can actually get done are two different things. If they're honest with us about the latter, they'd never get elected since it doesn't jive well with the former. The tired old cliche fits - we can't handle the truth.


----------



## 2 Cdo (22 Apr 2005)

So another person thinks that it is Ok to side with a party known for it's lying and stealing. Glorified Ape, I notice you are an officer cadet trying to make it in the infantry. All I have to say is I sincerely hope that I never have to work for you (if you make it), as your beliefs just seem to be a bit out of wack for a commissioned officer.


----------



## Gunner (22 Apr 2005)

> "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."
> -- Sir Winston Leonard Spenser Churchill (1874-1965), British statesman, prime minister, author


----------



## Glorified Ape (22 Apr 2005)

Gunner said:
			
		

> Churchill quote..



Define "liberal" and "conservative". I carry views that fit both descriptions, depending on which context you're using those terms in. As I said, both the Liberal and Conservative parties advance policies that I agree with, though I believe Churchill's black/white characterization of politics is as undesirable and counterproductive as his alcoholism was. 



			
				2 Cdo said:
			
		

> So another person thinks that it is Ok to side with a party known for it's lying and stealing. Glorified Ape, I notice you are an officer cadet trying to make it in the infantry. All I have to say is I sincerely hope that I never have to work for you (if you make it), as your beliefs just seem to be a bit out of wack for a commissioned officer.



My point was that it was a "two evils" scenario - I can the pick the one I know and whose platform I agree with most, but their behaviour leaves much to be desired. Or I can pick the one I don't know, whose platform I largely disagree with, but whose conduct and behaviour are better. Given the choice, I pick the first because it comes down to a cost-benefit workout: get policies I largely agree with put in place by a bunch of a-holes or get policies, most of which I disagree with, put in place by (apparently) half-decent politicians. I can either vote for a party whose platform I don't believe in, and thus don't believe is in the best interests of the country, based on their likely conduct and likelihood of personal benefit, or I can vote for a party whose conduct is poor but whose platform I agree with (to a greater extent), but will likely not personally benefit me. That's politics. Edit: To pick either one is to compromise one's beliefs and so they are morally equivalent. 

I'm curious as to what aspect of my political views you believe are contrary to performing properly as a commissioned officer?


----------



## onecat (23 Apr 2005)

"Sad thing is, you'll never know why it is beyond your comprehension.  Good news - ignorance is bliss."

that's okay Micheal, I know your just upset because you really want one of those t-shirts I'm going be making... ;D but because your Liberal party support ( if not that's cool but from your other posts here one would think you are) you can wear them in public.  maybe I'll put that in the t-stirt too... yes on the back.  Good news - ignorance is bliss.  You take a XL right? :dontpanic:

All kidding side, I found your last post to be very rude and if you weren't all ready on the broad I would report your comments. I've seen others here a verbal warning for less.


----------



## old medic (23 Apr 2005)

Its sad how quickly some adults here quickly turn to mud slinging.

Frankly, no party is any better than the other. It's all politics and 
politics by nature is dirty. Here's a "Rant on Politicians & Parties" :

Party X and their leader P.T. comes to power, feeds at the trough,
appoints pals to a few positions, cuts the heck out of the military 
budget, get into a few scandals and then P.T. retires to leave his
"pal" J.T. holding the bag......

We all get upset and vote them out, (we sure showed them).....

Party Y and their leader B.M. comes to power, feeds at the trough,
appoints pals to a few positions, cuts the heck out of the military 
budget, gets into a few scandals and then B.M. retires to leave his
"pal" K.C. holding the bag....

We all get upset and vote them out, (we sure showed them).....

Party X and their leader J.C. comes to power, feeds at the trough,
appoints pals to a few positions, cuts the heck out of the military 
budget, gets into a few scandals and then J.C. retires to leave his
"pal" P.M. holding the bag....

We all get upset.....

But the funniest part is: Some people are still surprised.


----------



## Zipper (23 Apr 2005)

> "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."
> -- Sir Winston Leonard Spenser Churchill (1874-1965), British statesman, prime minister, author



I guess I have no heart, and no brains? (Don't all jump on that one at once ;D) As a Red Tory that has had his party swept out from under him, I find it difficult to side with either.

Otherwise. Good posts by Ape and Medic. You've both hit very close to where I stand.


----------



## TCBF (23 Apr 2005)

I don't think the Reform and the PCs should have merged - to me, they are poles apart on issues of the role and size of government.  I think the Liberals and the PCs should have merged, as they are two sides of the same leftist/big govt/big union/big commerce  coin.  

A good system, where essentially the same group of lawyers divides themselves in half and pretend to be in competition and pretend to offer the electorate "choice".  Of course, for them to merge would have been to spoil the ruse, so instead the PCs were merged into Reform/CA/Whatever to water it down so that in 10 years or less it will be dogmatically similar to the old PCs, and all of those Prarie populists will be back where they started in 1987.  Disenfranchised.  NEP 2006 here we come.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (23 Apr 2005)

old medic said:
			
		

> Its sad how quickly some adults here quickly turn to mud slinging.
> 
> Frankly, no party is any better than the other. It's all politics and
> politics by nature is dirty. Here's a "Rant on Politicians & Parties" :
> ...



I don't think it's funny at all:
P.T. was elected _four _times;
B.M. was elected once, and then re-elected on the basis of a single issue, despite his unpopularity (Liberals almost certainly would have won had they not lied about their intentions re: Free Trade ... seems they can't even tell the truth when it's in their best interest);
J.C. was elected _three _times ...

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not surprised at all: I'm upset because we keep putting the same people back in, despite their scandalous behaviour and then paint all politicians with the same brush (I suspect, it's the sad state of affairs in our fourth estate)!


----------



## old medic (23 Apr 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> (Liberals almost certainly would have won...)



You mean X  ;D

It's an interesting cycle. I guess the moral is - Absolute majorities corrupt absolutely.




<edited for spelling>


----------



## Zipper (23 Apr 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> A good system, where essentially the same group of lawyers divides themselves in half and pretend to be in competition and pretend to offer the electorate "choice".



Sounds like the Democrats and Republicans down south. ;D



			
				old medic said:
			
		

> It's an interesting cycle. I guess the moral is - Absolute majorities corrupt absolutely.



Not far off at all.

Lets all vote NDP and see what a pisser that would be. :blotto:


----------



## TCBF (23 Apr 2005)

Better yet - BQ.

Tom


----------



## 2 Cdo (23 Apr 2005)

Glorified Ape, think about it just for a minute. I'm sure it will dawn on you. I'll give you a hint, two traits that you should strive for in yourself, and those you surround yourself with or align yourself with.Think real hard and maybe it will come to you!


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (23 Apr 2005)

old medic said:
			
		

> You mean X  ;D
> 
> It's an interesting cycle. I guess the moral is - Absolute majorities corrupt absolutely.
> 
> <edited for spelling>



I and was trying to be non-partisan and reduce the democratic deficit ... damn!


----------



## Zipper (23 Apr 2005)

> It's an interesting cycle. I guess the moral is - Absolute majorities corrupt absolutely.



Its funny that that should be said. Considering Alberta has had one (absolute) majority government or another (3 in fact) in its whole 100 year history. They love their continuity.


----------



## canadianblue (23 Apr 2005)

I don't think the government in Alberta is corrupt. If they were then Albertan's would throw them out alltogether. Albertan's will keep on voting in good, common sense governments, it's only when the government loses the trust of the people, that they will be decimated in the next election and a new majority gov't elected.


----------



## Glorified Ape (23 Apr 2005)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Glorified Ape, think about it just for a minute. I'm sure it will dawn on you. I'll give you a hint, two traits that you should strive for in yourself, and those you surround yourself with or align yourself with.Think real hard and maybe it will come to you!



Personal political choices are outside the purview of professional doctrine - my politics are my own. I shouldn't have to tell you this, I believe they make some brief mention of it in basic.

Politicians are going to lie, both the good ones and the bad. As I said, I believe this is necessary sometimes - if politicians told the public the absolute truth about everything, you'd have mass anomie and possibly panic, given the scenario. People want to hear what they want to hear, if politicians didn't feed them dreamy speeches and promises (most of which they won't/can't fulfill), they wouldn't get elected. Telling your constituents "Hey, I'd really like to help you out but it's unlikely I'd be able to implement the healthcare reforms you want" isn't likely to get you elected. As for stealing, I don't condone it at all but nor do I believe that the entirety of the Liberal party is guilty of it or that the entirety of their potential should be judged on the basis of the bad acts of some of their members. I wouldn't vote for a party BECAUSE they lie or steal and I would surely prefer to vote for a party that doesn't do either (for the lying part that's impossible) but I don't think the NDP stands a chance of forming a government or conducting one capably and, as I said, I disagree with 75% of the Conservative platform. What would you suggest I do? Vote for a party I don't support? If I voted for them specifically because they were liars/thieves then there'd be a problem. Politicians are going to lie, to get angry about that is like screaming at clouds for raining on you. That doesn't mean I hold myself to the same standard as politicians. I have no intention or desire to lie or steal, and most especially not in an officerial capacity. As for the scandal, those individuals responsible should be brought to justice. I don't condone stealing nor would I do it and I'd love to have a political environment where people don't lie, but thems the breaks. 

I'd love to have a party of saints with a platform I could support 100% but that's not going to happen. As I said - I take what I view to be the lesser of two evils. If you're going to question my potential as an officer, at least do it based on some valid criterion, not my political beliefs.


----------



## canadianblue (23 Apr 2005)

> I disagree with 75% of the Conservative platform



What do you disagree with???

As for stealing, if it were a conservative government in power, were I agreed with most of their policies, but they were as corrupt as the current government, I would simply vote for the opposition party closest to my views, or simply a fifth party.


----------



## larry Strong (23 Apr 2005)

If you cant stomach any of the parties, spoil your ballot, at least you went out to the polling station. Ii would sooner do that than vote in thieves.


----------



## Zipper (24 Apr 2005)

If you pay attention to what goes on in your riding, you can pretty well be assured that there is SOMEONE who is running with the same ideals as yourself. Problem is most people vote strategically and that leaves you basically 3 choices. So we can either have even more parties sitting in Parliament, or you vote for someone closest to your ideas but is not a perfect fit. 

Either way, your screwed.

Futuretrooper - Do you actually think someone is going to SAY what they totally disagree with about a conservative platform? C'mon. Why set themselves up for the neo-con BBQ?

Myself. I would rather not see an election right now. To much money (more money) at this moment down the tube. Although I think either way we are seeing the end of the Liberal rein.


----------



## Glorified Ape (24 Apr 2005)

Futuretrooper said:
			
		

> What do you disagree with???



The Conservative platform is 40 pages long, so I can't go through the whole thing with you but I'll list a few points of what I agree and disagree with. I don't want to get in a huge debate about policy, but I think your question deserves an answer since if I'm going to say I don't agree with the conservative platform, I should at least demonstrate that I've bothered to read it. 

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 - They 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 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. Senate reform - I'm torn between the two - I can see the benefits of both and tend to side with the "if it's worked for XXXX number of years, why bother changing it" appraoch. 
6. 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.
7. 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. 
8. 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 pokey. 
9. 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. 

I recognize the legitimacy of the arguments countering what I've said here, I just don't want to argue them ad infinitum. I can't vote for the Cons and I'd rather not vote for the Libs. I could vote NDP but in the riding I vote in they stand 0 chance of success so it's a wasted vote.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Apr 2005)

I've been trying to read over this gong-show but I'm lost - if it makes any difference, I don't put much stock in any of the political parties that are "representing" us right now; infact, I have a distrust for parties period, my favorite MP right now is Chuck Cadman, the independent who works for his people.


----------



## larry Strong (24 Apr 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Agree:
> 
> 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 - They 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.
> ...



2, Funny Quebec has the highest amount of private for profit clinics in Canada, yet nobody says or does anything about it. Yet if you are a Conservative you automatically have a "Hidden Agenda"

3, Like our criminal courts and Jail system is working now, We don't run the jails anymore, the criminals do. If you doubt that, take the time to talk to any member of CSC that works the "Line". Not the management.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/946010/posts
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1114210757254_31
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/01/27/prison-tattoos050127.html

4, See the second link above. 

5, You have people that don't show up for the majority of sittings, you have cronyism, you have people given Senate jobs that don't represent the will of the population of their province, You call this working!!!!

6, Why not, Then the field would be even and fair.

I suppose you are all in favor of the "First past the post" that we have now where a minority can elect the government of the day, where's the democracy in that.

You also say the Gun registry hasn't worked and it's not likely to work, yet you don't have a problem with wasting more money there. what the heck colour is the sky you wake up to!!! I think the billion or so that has been spent there would be better spent hiring more police officers. But then we might put more criminals in jail something you obviously are not in favor of, Part 3 of your response.


----------



## Zipper (25 Apr 2005)

Two things in that last rant.

One. Putting more police on the streets means nothing. You have to get the criminals charged and through court. More police just mean more back log in the court system. Not to mention no where near enough jail space. Their double bunking them already, which is dangerous.

Two. The criminals controlling the jails. As long as you have drugs getting into the jail, you have them under reasonable control. True fact if ugly. If you take the drugs away, they all go into DT's and start rioting. So unless we wish to accept a high body count in correctional officers from the riots or the prisoners from either the riots or killing themselves in the throws of the DT's, its the status quo. I don't like it any more then you. But there it is. 

Its going to be interesting enough with the ban on smoking going into effect.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Apr 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> One. Putting more police on the streets means nothing. You have to get the criminals charged and through court. More police just mean more back log in the court system. Not to mention no where near enough jail space. Their double bunking them already, which is dangerous.



Agree with you here Zipper - all the cops in the world won't make a difference when a guy pushing crack on the street is right back to his turf 6 hours after being arrested.


----------



## Glorified Ape (25 Apr 2005)

larry Strong said:
			
		

> 2, Funny Quebec has the highest amount of private for profit clinics in Canada, yet nobody says or does anything about it. Yet if you are a Conservative you automatically have a "Hidden Agenda"
> 
> 3, Like our criminal courts and Jail system is working now, We don't run the jails anymore, the criminals do. If you doubt that, take the time to talk to any member of CSC that works the "Line". Not the management.
> 
> ...



Maybe you missed this part: 



			
				Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I recognize the legitimacy of the arguments countering what I've said here, I just don't want to argue them ad infinitum.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Apr 2005)

What's the point of putting something up in a debate if you are not willing to debate it?


----------



## Glorified Ape (25 Apr 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> What's the point of putting something up in a debate if you are not willing to debate it?



I was asked what I specifically disagreed with about the Con platform and I answered, acknowledging the legitimacy of arguments for/against policies I opposed/supported to avoid a huge debate. The point being argued wasn't one of pros/cons of different policies, it was regarding who to vote for between 2 parties which have serious points of detraction. The question was valid since it pertained to backing up a claim I'd made which was germane to the argument - IE that I had objections to the Conservative platform. We can argue policy until we're blue in the face but it's not likely to have any affect on the aforementioned point. To tell you the truth, I didn't really want to get into a rehashed debate on gay marriage, gun control, healthcare, crime, the SCC, etc. since they've already been done to death. 

*Edited spelling error


----------



## larry Strong (25 Apr 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> Two. The criminals controlling the jails. As long as you have drugs getting into the jail, you have them under reasonable control. True fact if ugly. If you take the drugs away, they all go into DT's and start rioting. So unless we wish to accept a high body count in correctional officers from the riots or the prisoners from either the riots or killing themselves in the throws of the DT's, its the status quo. I don't like it any more then you. But there it is.
> 
> Its going to be interesting enough with the ban on smoking going into effect.



Give me a ******* break. If we started treating them like prisoners, and not coddle them like poor little babies, Explain to me the logic of throwing someone in jail for selling drugs and then giving him needles and turning a blind eye to him using and selling in jail!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The smoking ban has been in effect in Alberta jails since last October if memory serves me right....no riots have happened.

Y'all need to quit doing the ostrich thing and join the real world


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Apr 2005)

Yep, we cut out the smoking at least 5/6 years ago in Ontario,.... no riots.
Lots of OT though, all dressed up and no fight to go.


----------



## larry Strong (25 Apr 2005)

And to bring up point's then say you don't want to argue them is soooo fiberal. I guess it's pretty hard to argue back when there is nothing to stand on.
I guess if it walks like a duck......... 

Thats just like Ujjal Dosanjh, he's been here, there and everywhere claiming that if the dreaded Tories form the next government "somebody might check your wallet before they check your pulse". But he's not so glib when it comes to explaining what his party has actually done to defend the cherished status quo. Particularly when it comes to the PM's home province of Quebec, where the provincial Liberals are using the Canada Health Act for kindling.
The number of treatments available privately in Quebec is growing monthly, but while other provinces are fined for messing with the CHA, in Quebec the Martin government looks the other way. "We've been working hard on the issue of enforcement of the CHA" insists Dosanjh. "We want to work in a way that doesn't aggravate the issues that exist in Canada. In a way that's co-operative and collaborative"
Yadda,yadda, yadda give the man a waffle iron.
The truth is that private treatment - everything from hip replacements to diagnostic test's- is becoming so prevalent and profitable in Quebec that providers are now advertising in neighboring Ontario. All with out a peep of protest from Martin or his trained seal Dosanjh


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Apr 2005)

larry Strong said:
			
		

> And to bring up point's then say you don't want to argue them is soooo fiberal. I guess it's pretty hard to argue back when there is nothing to stand on.
> I guess if it walks like a duck.........
> 
> Thats just like Ujjal Dosanjh, he's been here, there and everywhere claiming that if the dreaded Tories form the next government "somebody might check your wallet before they check your pulse". But he's not so glib when it comes to explaining what his party has actually done to defend the cherished status quo. Particularly when it comes to the PM's home province of Quebec, where the provincial Liberals are using the Canada Health Act for kindling.
> ...



Yes, indeed; and please don't make a fuss.  Montreal is closer (and cheaper) than Syracuse - the previous favourite _Medicare safety valve_ for folks from Ottawa.

I like the fact that everyone is covered for all medically necessary treatments in Canada but I hate waiting in line for days, much less weeks and months, when there might be something wrong with me, and I don't begrudge some good, private, physician a few thousand dollars to deal with my concerns right now.  I know someone else's Aunt Nellie has greater 'need'  than I; let her use her nephew's gold card if she doesn't have one of her own.


----------



## larry Strong (25 Apr 2005)

Thank you. People forget that Dr's are a private enterprise to begin with, Do they want the government to buy them all out and put them on the public purse also. I still have 60% of my wage they could steal to do that with I guess...

Not out to take your purchased health care from you. Just shaking my head at the naivety of people


----------



## Zipper (25 Apr 2005)

larry Strong said:
			
		

> Give me a ******* break. If we started treating them like prisoners, and not coddle them like poor little babies, Explain to me the logic of throwing someone in jail for selling drugs and then giving him needles and turning a blind eye to him using and selling in jail!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> The smoking ban has been in effect in Alberta jails since last October if memory serves me right....no riots have happened.
> 
> Y'all need to quit doing the ostrich thing and join the real world



Couldn't agree more. However...               ...they TRY to a point to control the drugs coming in (And Bruce can probably attest to the REAL world on this), but only to a point. Keeping the bad guys "happy" means that they don't have to work as hard dealing with them (which is extremely draining), nor do they have to suit up their ETF guys as often (which fills up there very small seg units rather quickly). Not my idea of an ideal world, but as I said. There it is.

As for the smoking ban. Yes it has not been as big an issue in the provincial systems as they feared. However again...          ...the federal system is where you have your really bad ass people and larger populations of addiction. Is it going to be as easy there? Oh man I hope so.

As for Health. Unfortunatly the "creep" of private clinics has sped up considerably everywhere. There are dozens in Alberta now. Although most of them are private MRI/x-ray/CT units which the province is "justifing" by saying it is taking the strain off the system to speed up diagnosis. 

Are we really in a health crisis? Or is it a temporary 10-15 year blip as the population gets older? Or will it be longer as our population grows? 

One way to help out in this and save the system money, is to stop going to emergency just because you, your kid/spouse/friend/grandma has a sniffle or slightly elavated tempurature, fell and scratched yourself, etc. Wait and go to your family doctor, or just deal with it. There is no need to go unless it is life threatening (read emergency).

And don't get me started on Doctors themselves.

Small rant.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Apr 2005)

Quote,
_Couldn't agree more. However...          ...they TRY to a point to control the drugs coming in (And Bruce can probably attest to the REAL world on this), but only to a point. Keeping the bad guys "happy" means that they don't have to work as hard dealing with them (which is extremely draining), nor do they have to suit up their ETF guys as often (which fills up there very small seg units rather quickly). Not my idea of an ideal world, but as I said. There it is._

_As for the smoking ban. Yes it has not been as big an issue in the provincial systems as they feared. However again...       ...the federal system is where you have your really bad *** people and larger populations of addiction. Is it going to be as easy there? Oh man I hope so._

...agree with the first paragraph totally, the second one though I have a bit of a rebuttall, remember all those "bad ass people" had to go through a provincial system first while awaiting trial/sentencing/etc. I think the big problem is that because the Fed system has always bent over backwards to "coddle" their inmates, that it makes it harder to " clamp up".

....and if Mr. Campbell wishes to spend his OWN money on health care, its much better that he spends it in Canada.
A toast to your health, Edward.


----------



## onecat (25 Apr 2005)

_One way to help out in this and save the system money, is to stop going to emergency just because you, your kid/spouse/friend/grandma has a sniffle or slightly elavated tempurature, fell and scratched yourself, etc. Wait and go to your family doctor, or just deal with it. There is no need to go unless it is life threatening (read emergency)._

hey do you live in Ontario?  If you do you would know that over 1.4 million Ontarians don't have a family doc to go too.  Walk in clinics are great but there hours suck and you don't get the same level of care, that's why many go to the emergency room.  At a walk in clinic you can't even get a doctor's note for work as they almost always refuse to sign them.

I see an easy way to get out of the doctor shortage though, let more students in to the program.  Right maybe 150 student get each year, and that is just not enough.  Allowing more to students to get in will not give us bad health care, just more doctors as they all have to meet the very high standards.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Apr 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> One way to help out in this and save the system money, is to stop going to emergency just because you, your kid/spouse/friend/grandma has a sniffle or slightly elevated temperature, fell and scratched yourself, etc. Wait and go to your family doctor, or just deal with it. There is no need to go unless it is life threatening (read emergency).



People will go to emerg because it is "free". Every other government freebie is oversubscribed (look at the Universities which are subsidized to the tune of about 70% of their operating budget. If past posters like MMI are any indication, there is a big problem with the "product" coming out of them). Pension plans are getting stressed because so many people are choosing to take their pensions early, or applying for and getting disability pensions for "stress". Since there are very minimal penalties for doing so, people are off to the races, and the pension system is unsustainable.



> Are we really in a health crisis? Or is it a temporary 10-15 year blip as the population gets older? Or will it be longer as our population grows?



Look at the demographics. The age wave in the population is no "blip", and there are fewer and fewer people in the follow on generations to support the wave.



> Unfortunately the "creep" of private clinics has sped up considerably everywhere. There are dozens in Alberta now. Although most of them are private MRI/x-ray/CT units which the province is "justifing" by saying it is taking the strain off the system to speed up diagnosis.



The reason private clinics are "creeping" is because they fulfill a real need, which our current system cannot. The perverse incentives built into socialized health care make it imperative that system managers "manage resources" as opposed to helping patients. Sad to say,* the ideal outcome in Canadian health care is that you die* before the system has to expend resources on expensive treatments and procedures. Ever wonder why the average visit to the family doctor only lasts 7 min and the usual outcome is to get a prescription or pill? Ever wonder why health care is rationed to the extent that waiting lists for surgeries and procedures is six months and more?

Oddly enough, there is no crisis in dental care, because the vast majority of dentists are in privater practice which is not regulated or controlled by a government monopoly. I suppose you may have noticed that in most areas of commerce, you have a wide choice of goods and services, which are readily available and competitively priced. Don't you think the real reason for the "crisis" IS the distortion of market forces? Why do you think health care is not responsive to market forces?


----------



## larry Strong (25 Apr 2005)

How about setting up a system that test's or places in practicum, all the cab drivers and people doing menial jobs, instead of being Doctors because they were trained in foreign countries.

I have a handful of friends and acquaintances who work in CSC Bowden in Alberta, what they tell me, drugs not included here, that they are pretty well well paid baby sitters who can only sit an watch for the most part, as the have to be careful not to violate Bubba's rights. The same Bubba who did not give a Rats A** about your rights or mine.
If this country was not being ruined...oops I meant run by so many bleeding heart, fuzzy bunny slippered liberals, Bubba would have had to give up his rights upon being incarcerated.    Oh I forgot it's not Bubba's fault that he is in jail for theft, robbing a Ma and Pa convenience store or committing murder...we should all hang our heads as it's our fault. Pitiful. The lunatics really do run the asylum.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Apr 2005)

Just to lighten up the mood I that I would post this, I mean it is an ARMY surplus store. ;D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mon, April 25, 2005 

Martin chew toy sales hot
Squeaks under pressure, a lot like real PM
By TODD SAELHOF, Sun Media

CALGARY -- The likeness of Prime Minister Paul Martin has become a dog's delight. That's because a squeeze toy in the PM's image has become a hot seller for pooch owners at an army surplus store. 
The rubber toy is a bust of Martin that sports the PM dressed in a blue blazer, white shirt and Canadian flag tie. 
And it squeaks under pressure -- somewhat resembling the Liberal leader, joked Crown Surplus owner Christine Cumming on Saturday as she watched her seven-year-old dog Jake gleefully wrap his jaws around the Liberal leader's rubber head. 

FLYING OF THE SHELVES 
"The joy is you can take the squeak out of it, so you don't have to listen to it," she said. 
The $12 pet toy has been flying off the shelves in the last several weeks compared with just a dozen sold before AdScam became a national issue. 
But with the alleged federal Liberal party involvement in the scandal, customers have snapped up 60 from Crown Surplus. 
"I think it's because of the scandal, and because you can let your rage out on it," said Cumming of political pet toys also available in busts of George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden.


----------



## pronto (25 Apr 2005)

There was a picture in the Ottawa Citizen yesterday - just the head sticking out of a dog's jowls. Funniest thing I have seen in months. I busted a rib laughing ;D


----------



## larry Strong (25 Apr 2005)

I saw that in the paper Ii thought it was hilarious, just to far to justify going and buying


----------



## Zipper (26 Apr 2005)

That was good.

Larry - Agreed that the CSC personal may just sit there. It all depends on the individual wardens policies and how far they wish to take them. Alot of them are not even ex-guards, but are paper pushers from the social services. As for being "tougher" on the prisoners...     ...not likely going to happen as the back lash from the public would be nasty in many cases. Canadians as a whole do not stomach the rougher treatment (that they know about >) of prisoners that some countries accept. 

The ideas presented on say Dr. Phil that if you misbehave, you have a luxury taken away from you until you prove that your deserving. And if you continue to misbehave, you eventually get to where your sleeping on the floor just won't fly in prison. The prisoners burn their mattresses on a regular basis when they get upset/come down/etc. But do they take them away and say, "You burnt it. You sleep on the floor."? Hell no. They put them in seg for a few days (with a mattress) and then send them back to their newly mattressed cell. And in order to avoid their mattress's burning in seg? The CSC staff have to light their freaking cigs for them.

As for the health part...

One of the unfortunate results of free commerce in medicine is the movement of Doctors towards specializations. No one (few) seems to be interested in general practise anymore. 

I agree that we should allow the educational standards to stand (with a test perhaps) of foreign trained Doctors and get them out of the cabs/etc.

You ideals have merit Majoor. The problem with it is that Canadians (myself one of them) do not want to see the less able/fortunate to be left in the lurch if they need medical attention. I read in the paper a day or so ago that the top 10% (rich) actually do pay the lions share of our tax bill. What caught me as surprising is that the top 10% simply have to make more then 64,500 a year to be in that category!! So what the hell is the breakdown of the other 90%? 

So if we had private medicine? How many of us could actually afford it?

Not I.

Not yet anyway...


----------



## Infanteer (26 Apr 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> So if we had private medicine? How many of us could actually afford it?



Well, we all could considering we would still be covered by Universal Health Insurance from the Government.  And the money will be there now that we are not forced to pay Doctors, Bureaucrats, and Unionized Health Sector employees who hold the public at ransom if they don't get pay and benefits for sweeping that are far above non-government unionized workplaces.


----------



## Glorified Ape (26 Apr 2005)

larry Strong said:
			
		

> And to bring up point's then say you don't want to argue them is soooo fiberal. I guess it's pretty hard to argue back when there is nothing to stand on.
> I guess if it walks like a duck.........



Not quite. As I said, the point being argued wasn't one of specific policy and I had no desire to redirect the discussion onto the myriad of issues which a platform represents. But keep up the temper tantrum, it reflects well on you. 



> Thats just like Ujjal Dosanjh, he's been here, there and everywhere claiming that if the dreaded Tories form the next government "somebody might check your wallet before they check your pulse". But he's not so glib when it comes to explaining what his party has actually done to defend the cherished status quo. Particularly when it comes to the PM's home province of Quebec, where the provincial Liberals are using the Canada Health Act for kindling.
> The number of treatments available privately in Quebec is growing monthly, but while other provinces are fined for messing with the CHA, in Quebec the Martin government looks the other way. "We've been working hard on the issue of enforcement of the CHA" insists Dosanjh. "We want to work in a way that doesn't aggravate the issues that exist in Canada. In a way that's co-operative and collaborative"
> Yadda,yadda, yadda give the man a waffle iron.
> The truth is that private treatment - everything from hip replacements to diagnostic test's- is becoming so prevalent and profitable in Quebec that providers are now advertising in neighboring Ontario. All with out a peep of protest from Martin or his trained seal Dosanjh



Indeed - I don't disagree. Where we may disagree is the solution. I'd prefer a revamping and improvement of the existing system rather than an expansion into a full-fledged two-tier system. Easier said than done, I know, but if the public system is going to survive in a decent state, we have to have single system and that means seriously editing the existing one to eliminate the need for a second tier. Provinces jacking around their respective systems and constant fed-provincial hissy fits over funding issues are half the problem. Regarding Quebec, since the feds are scared sh-tless (especially now) about attempting to seriously enforce any kind of federal standards legislation in Quebec, for fear of spawning a revitalization of the separatist movement, I don't see any real changes happening here. Things may be able to improve elsewhere, though. 

Since you got so excited about my not responding:


			
				larry Strong said:
			
		

> 2, Funny Quebec has the highest amount of private for profit clinics in Canada, yet nobody says or does anything about it. Yet if you are a Conservative you automatically have a "Hidden Agenda"



Not at all, it's just that there's been a tendency amongst the more Reform-oriented Conservatives to ponder a two-tier system. Even the Progressive Conservatives in Ontario toyed with the idea, if I recall correctly. You have Liberals who'd opt for the two-tier system too, I'm just not aware of Martin's membership in an organization like the National Citizen's Coalition which has actively pushed for it. 



> 3, Like our criminal courts and Jail system is working now, We don't run the jails anymore, the criminals do. If you doubt that, take the time to talk to any member of CSC that works the "Line". Not the management.
> 
> http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/946010/posts
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1114210757254_31
> http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/01/27/prison-tattoos050127.html



Where did I argue that conditional sentencing was a good thing? What I took issue with was a 3-strikes law which, in combination with trying 14 year old kids as adults, could see juveniles being locked up for life for 3 violent offences which, these days, could be little more than a schoolyard fight. I really don't object to the Conservatives' proposal for earned parole instead of statutory parole and more stringent enforcement of life sentences.

Where I said that prisons were too harsh, I don't recall either. What the hell do dangerous offender status and a 3 strikes law have to do with prison tattoo funding? 



> 4, See the second link above.



What does gay marriage have to do with non-enforcement of conditional sentences? 



> 5, You have people that don't show up for the majority of sittings, you have cronyism, you have people given Senate jobs that don't represent the will of the population of their province, You call this working!!!!



Of course it's cronyism - so are SCC appointments, to a degree, but I wouldn't argue that we should start electing our Supreme Court justices. There needs to be alteration in the regional composition of the Senate, no doubt about it, as the west is severely under-represented but I don't take issue with it being staffed by appointment. Both the Conservatives and Liberals have been stacking the Senate whenever they could, but it hasn't been the source of any great catastrophes. On the contrary - the Senate's shooting down of the GST bill and the Abortion Act were both acts in keeping with the public's will. If you want to look somewhere for an effective change, look at Charter reform. Governmental bypassing of regulations through the invocation of random sections does more to undermine the process than an appointed senate. 



> 6, Why not, Then the field would be even and fair.



I don't think it's unfair presently. Everyone gets the same kick a the can if they can get into government. Letting the PM call the elections also allows the public to pressure him/her into doing it. If there was a crisis of legitimacy in a majority government after 2 years of office, you'd have no effective method of solving the problem because you're locked in to a 4 year cycle. 



> I suppose you are all in favor of the "First past the post" that we have now where a minority can elect the government of the day, where's the democracy in that.



Plurality voting has its advantages and disadvantages - one of the primary advantages being its simplicity. I don't particularly like the system, though, and I think something like the Single Transferable Vote might work better. 



> You also say the Gun registry hasn't worked and it's not likely to work, yet you don't have a problem with wasting more money there. what the heck colour is the sky you wake up to!!!



Where did I say I didn't have a problem with wasting more money there? I said scrap it - hence why I put it under the "AGREE" column. I said it seemed like a waste of money since everything's already been set up; I didn't say "Don't scrap it" or I'd have said I DISAGREED with the policy. Ideally, they could use the infrastructure for some other program but given its specificity, I doubt it's possible. Dare to dream, I guess. Stop manufacturing straw men to attack. 



> I think the billion or so that has been spent there would be better spent hiring more police officers. But then we might put more criminals in jail something you obviously are not in favor of, Part 3 of your response.



Another straw man, eh? Where'd I say I wasn't in favour of putting criminals in jail? I said I didn't want juveniles labelled dangerous offenders after 3 violent offences. I didn't say DON'T punish them and I didn't say DON'T make that punishment time in detention - by all means, punish them and do it with jail time if necessary.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Apr 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Plurality voting has its advantages and disadvantages - one of the primary advantages being its simplicity. I don't particularly like the system, though, and I think something like the Single Transferable Vote might work better.



Yuk, we're voting on this in BC right now for the Province and it is nothing but an Academic Frankenstein (thanks MDB).

How you elect people to a house makes no difference if you still have a bunch of elites within the party structure running the show.  In Canada, nothing will change the fact that we have a _de facto_ unicameral house that has most of its powers centralized within Cabinet and, more particularly, the PMO.

I still think that the real solution lies in:

1) checks and balances between legislative and executive functions of which a true bicameral house is important.

2)  A check on the centrality of the Party line and partisan politics.  As my favorite Edmund Burke quote goes:

_"Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole.  You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but is a member of Parliament."_


----------



## dutchie (26 Apr 2005)

Sorry to shift gears here, but I just saw (and read) this thread and have to throw something out there...

A lot of Canadians say they don't want another Federal election right now. Too soon, they say. Well, sorry folks, this is the down side of a democracy. Sometimes you HAVE to have an election, whether it fits into your summer plans in cottage country or not. We can't afford to leave the foxes in the henhouse much longer or we'll run out of hens. 

I like the following analogy when thinking of our esteemed PM's request to wait until the report before going to an election: If you were wealthy, and had a financial manager to do all of your investing, banking, taxes, etc, and you found out that his staff was embezzling and stealing thousands of dollars a year from you....would you allow this 'leader' to continue manging your money while the authorities investigate? Or would you fire him, while you still have some money? 

Don't forget that Paul shut down the first investigation (sorry, can't remember the name of it) into Adscam in order to hold the election (or so he said), saying, 'I don't want the inquiry to get in the way of the election' (or words to that effect). So let me get this straight Paul - when your poop don't stink, we need to shut down the inquiry so we don't pollute the voter's minds, but when the Grits look like modern day Caligula's, we need to wait for all the details to come out first before we go to the polls? Give me a break. 

As far as Jack Layton goes - what a sell-out. Of course he'll prostitute himself and his fringe party out to keep this good thing goin'. His standing in Parliament, and more importantly the number of NDP seats, is his best-case scenario. He can't improve on that, so why would he want to end it so soon? Too bad he looks like he has the integrity of a used car salesman. Looks like one too.

Sorry, had to do that. I feel better now.


----------



## Glorified Ape (26 Apr 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Yuk, we're voting on this in BC right now for the Province and it is nothing but an Academic Frankenstein (thanks MDB).
> 
> How you elect people to a house makes no difference if you still have a bunch of elites within the party structure running the show.   In Canada, nothing will change the fact that we have a _de facto_ unicameral house that has most of its powers centralized within Cabinet and, more particularly, the PMO.
> 
> ...



I take from the first part that you're in favour of serious senate reform. As I said before, I can understand the points, I'm just not sure it's really necessary. The "elites" problem you're describing is an effect of political parties themselves, not so much a lack of popular consultation, imo. 

I agree with you about party politics - alot of the actual "national concern" gets lost in partisan rivalry. That's why I'm getting increasingly sick of hardcore partisan jackasses, both of the elite and the general population, who make everything into a partisan issue and stamp everything bad, regardless of the participation therein of their own members, as the responsibility of the opposing party or somehow hued with the tones of the opposition. It's crap like that that earns Fox News its viewer base. 

From what I've heard, a Single Transferable Vote system may actually reduce this, to some small degree, by increasing the likelihood of small parties/independent members gaining seats. I wonder sometimes whether political parties will eventually be regarded with the same hindsight disdain that slavery, capital punishment, or bloodletting are. Hopefully, but doubtful - common interests breed organization for the achievement thereof, I guess. Unless you legislate it out of the realm of legality, which is personally my favourite approach. 

I thought THIS quote pertained to your second paragraph quite well: 

"_The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlled, each a jumble of incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly on what should be said on the vital issues of the day._"

- Teddy Roosevelt


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Apr 2005)

>we have to have single system and that means seriously editing the existing one to eliminate the need for a second tier

I realize this is a small sidebar, but how in your monolithic public system without the presence of a free market do you determine how much to pay all the service providers?


----------



## Infanteer (26 Apr 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I take from the first part that you're in favour of serious senate reform. As I said before, I can understand the points, I'm just not sure it's really necessary. The "elites" problem you're describing is an effect of political parties themselves, not so much a lack of popular consultation, imo.



My second point was addressed towards "elites" and the lameness of politics when it is relegated to Party bi-lines (which you addressed quite nicely in your jab at partisanship and Fox News).  My first point (which includes serious Senate reform) is directed at "checks and balances" for that very purpose of balance.

Why the balance?

Going back to a statement by Brad Sallows on another thread:



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> There will always be manipulative and deceitful and greedy people.  They will tend to seek out power structures which facilitate their goals.  For those reasons I prefer to minimize government power as a precaution against the inevitable.  The system of government we establish to safeguard our rights, can in turn abuse those rights if not controlled.



As well, Andrew Coyne remarked in an editorial that:



> You can slap on all the controls and accountability mechanisms you want, that is, but so long as ministers have the means, motive and opportunity to interfere, interfere they will.



I guess it all falls back to that Lord Acton quote on power - regardless of who is in power, the safeguards must be in place to protect the citizenry against the manipulative, the deceitful, and the plain old incompetent.  I am enough of a realist to know that these types of people exist and will make it into power.  The system must be structured so as to allow for this and to contain it.  In my opinion, the de facto unicameral house and centralized power structure does not do so.



> From what I've heard, a Single Transferable Vote system may actually reduce this, to some small degree, by increasing the likelihood of small parties/independent members gaining seats.



I can't understand the system and how my vote is going to be utilized (manipulated) by it to ensure "fairness".  There is something to be said for the KISS principle in democratic politics - go down, vote for your choice, live with your representative.  We are not going to close the democratic deficit at all by bringing in a ballot system that requires one to have a PhD in Governance to figure it out.



> I thought THIS quote pertained to your second paragraph quite well:
> 
> "_The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlled, each a jumble of incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly on what should be said on the vital issues of the day._"
> 
> - Teddy Roosevelt



Yes, very much so.  Teddy Roosevelt is one of my favorites (and Kissinger's too  ).


----------



## Glorified Ape (26 Apr 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> My second point was addressed towards "elites" and the lameness of politics when it is relegated to Party bi-lines (which you addressed quite nicely in your jab at partisanship and Fox News).   My first point (which includes serious Senate reform) is directed at "checks and balances" for that very purpose of balance.
> 
> Why the balance?
> 
> ...



I'd argue those checks already exist. You get too many checks and you end up with a series of impotent governments who need 5 terms to bring about any real change. I'm all for democracy (most of the time) but it needs to be balanced with the necessity for decisive action once the government's been chosen. That's why I like the parliamentary system - with a majority government you have few constraints to action besides the Charter/courts/public opinion. 

I don't opt for the minimalist approach to government involvement since inequities and abuses inevitably evolve where no authority is present and they have to be corrected. That's not to say that totalitarianism breeds the ultimate in equality or decency of treatment, but I think there's a happy balance between the two. Too little government and you have pockets of anarchy, too much and you have gross micromanagement and inefficiency. It seems the debate centers around how much is enough. I'm not so arrogant as to argue I know the answer, though. 



> I can't understand the system and how my vote is going to be utilized (manipulated) by it to ensure "fairness".   There is something to be said for the KISS principle in democratic politics - go down, vote for your choice, live with your representative.   We are not going to close the democratic deficit at all by bringing in a ballot system that requires one to have a PhD in Governance to figure it out.



With an STV system, if your primary choice didn't win, your secondary choice could. Take someone torn between voting for the NDP or Liberals, for example: They'd like to vote NDP but they doubt the vote will have any real effect and since there's only one kick at the can, they "strategically" vote for the Liberals as a compromise. With the STV, you could vote NDP and, if you were right and your guy doesn't win, your vote goes to your second choice - the Liberals. In essence, the way I see it is that it overcomes the major obstacle for independent's and small parties by allowing the voter to vote for their prime choice and not just their lesser-of-two-evils choice (the other evil being the party they wouldn't vote for in any case). As such, even if it was your second or third choice that got in, you'd still have some sense of involvement in the decision to seat that person. 



> Yes, very much so.   Teddy Roosevelt is one of my favorites (and Kissinger's too   ).



You've now ruined Teddy Roosevelt for me.... forever.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Apr 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I'd argue those checks already exist. You get too many checks and you end up with a series of impotent governments who need 5 terms to bring about any real change. I'm all for democracy (most of the time) but it needs to be balanced with the necessity for decisive action once the government's been chosen. That's why I like the parliamentary system - with a majority government you have few constraints to action besides the Charter/courts/public opinion.



Not according the Jeffrey Simpson, who's book The Benevolent Dictatorship points to the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada has the most authority and power of any liberal democratic democracies.   I am inclined to agree with this.



> I don't opt for the minimalist approach to government involvement since inequities and abuses inevitably evolve where no authority is present and they have to be corrected. That's not to say that totalitarianism breeds the ultimate in equality or decency of treatment, but I think there's a happy balance between the two. Too little government and you have pockets of anarchy, too much and you have gross micromanagement and inefficiency. It seems the debate centers around how much is enough. I'm not so arrogant as to argue I know the answer, though.



Agree - I think we are moving away from one end of the scale that is represented by a Keynesian "fingers in the pie" mentality.



> With an STV system, if your primary choice didn't win, your secondary choice could. Take someone torn between voting for the NDP or Liberals, for example: They'd like to vote NDP but they doubt the vote will have any real effect and since there's only one kick at the can, they "strategically" vote for the Liberals as a compromise. With the STV, you could vote NDP and, if you were right and your guy doesn't win, your vote goes to your second choice - the Liberals. In essence, the way I see it is that it overcomes the major obstacle for independent's and small parties by allowing the voter to vote for their prime choice and not just their lesser-of-two-evils choice (the other evil being the party they wouldn't vote for in any case). As such, even if it was your second or third choice that got in, you'd still have some sense of involvement in the decision to seat that person.



Not necessarily.   Imagine if I have a candidate I want to vote for.   The other alternative is a bunch of single platform parties I don't particularly care for or the opposition party that was utterly destroyed in the last election for outright incompetence and corruption.

So I only put a "1" down for my choice on the STV ballot and submit that.   Now say 10,000 votes are needed for a seat in a multi-member riding and my guy gets 10,001 (of which one is mine).   Since I only put "1" down (for lack of interest in any other choices) my vote will stay with him while another is taken off to one of the candidates I am not particularly interested in.   By voting, I am supporting a party I don't want to see in governance.   By staying home and not voting, I am making sure X keeps his vote and the other guy doesn't get the secondary vote.   How is this supposed to encourage democracy?

Confusing?   You bet - but the complex engineering and electoral gerrymandering is there.   Look at the trouble that complex ballot procedures (let alone voting procedures) have caused in US elections.   You don't see these problems in Canada where a simple check in the box and a plurality establishes a winner.

First-past-the-post, Plurality voting or whatever you want to call it has been working fairly well for hundreds of years - why mess with it?



> You've now ruined Teddy Roosevelt for me.... forever.



Theodore Rex never struck me as a politician you would like....


----------



## Glorified Ape (26 Apr 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Not according the Jeffrey Simpson, who's book The Benevolent Dictatorship points to the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada has the most authority and power of any liberal democratic democracies.   I am inclined to agree with this.



That may very well be true - but I don't see it as a bad thing. The checks, both formal and informal, necessary to keep him from turning despotic or seriously screwing up the charter are there. I don't subscribe to the belief that someone has to be second-guessing and vetting every decision the government makes, to the point where the executive can't take a leak without someone following them into the bathroom. 



> Agree - I think we are moving away from one end of the scale that is represented by a Keynesian "fingers in the pie" mentality.



But then you have the debate around which parts of the pie the fingers should be in! My main concern is equity - not of result but opportunity. I don't think the government should dictate what toilet paper you use, but I think it's necessary that the government provide all the necessary external preconditions for success - IE quality elementary education, accessible post-secondary education, free (and decent) healthcare, daycare (so kids don't get their primary socialization from TV/friends), and where necessary, welfare - not for the parents necessarily but so the kids aren't trying to do homework when their last meal was 12 hours ago. 



> Not necessarily.   Imagine if I have a candidate I want to vote for.   The other alternative is a bunch of single platform parties I don't particularly care for or the opposition party that was utterly destroyed in the last election for outright incompetence and corruption.
> 
> So I only put a "1" down for my choice on the STV ballot and submit that.   Now say 10,000 votes are needed for a seat in a multi-member riding and my guy gets 10,001 (of which one is mine).   Since I only put "1" down (for lack of interest in any other choices) my vote will stay with him while another is taken off to one of the candidates I am not particularly interested in.   By voting, I am supporting a party I don't want to see in governance.   By staying home and not voting, I am making sure X keeps his vote and the other guy doesn't get the secondary vote.   How is this supposed to encourage democracy?
> 
> ...



Well, for me, because often times the government can't be said to represent a majority by any stretch of the imagination. That's inherent to some degree in a multi-party system, but I think you can enhance perceptions of legitimacy by having a greater perception of responsibility in the public for their government, even if it was their second choice. 

I'm a little unclear as to your example - you said 10 000 seats were required to be elected, and your vote was 10 001 - how does that send the other votes down the line to the next guy? I'll admit off the bat that I'm not the most familiar with STV - electoral politics/domestic politics really isn't my thing. 



> Theodore Rex never stuck me as a politician you would like....



Yeah, there are a great many politicians I don't like but many I respect enough to at least appreciate their quotes. Kissinger definitely isn't one of them and now neither is TR - guilt by association, even if he was dead before the association.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (26 Apr 2005)

Sorry to butt-in, but:



			
				Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> That may very well be true - but I don't see it as a bad thing. The checks, both formal and informal, necessary to keep him from turning despotic or seriously screwing up the charter are there. I don't subscribe to the belief that someone has to be second-guessing and vetting every decision the government makes, to the point where the executive can't take a leak without someone following them into the bathroom.


And yet the United States manages to function ... the checks that do exist are hardly sufficient to stop a true despot: we have a single person that almost complete control over the executive and legislative branches and appoints all of the judiciary!  If that weren't bad enough, he has the constitutional right (via the legislature) to override the charter of rights! 



> I think it's necessary that the government provide all the necessary external preconditions for success - IE quality elementary education, accessible post-secondary education, free (and decent) healthcare, daycare (so kids don't get their primary socialization from TV/friends), and where necessary, welfare - not for the parents necessarily but so the kids aren't trying to do homework when their last meal was 12 hours ago.



How is ANY of this a _necessary _precondition for success?  At best they are an aid to it: at worst a hinderance!


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Apr 2005)

>with a majority government you have few constraints to action besides the Charter/courts/public opinion

Try to imagine Canada under 4 or 5 straight versions of the Bush administration.   Do you think you might reconsider your opinion of the few constraints on the Prime Minister's office?

On BC STV:

Note that under BC's proposed STV your successive choices won't necessarily kick in immediately if your higher-ranked choices don't make quorum.    What happens is the next choices on each ballot of candidates who made quorum in a particular round are counted to determine what share of each is transferred to other candidates in the next round.   It is only when no candidate makes quorum in a transfer round that the lowest-polling candidate is dropped and the ballots instead directed to successive choices.

(If I misunderstand the system, I expect anyone who knows differently to correct me.   This is an important issue.)

Here is a simple example which I have constructed to show why NOT "everyone's vote will count" equally.   Imagine a 2-member riding in which 30,000 votes are cast.   The quorum is Q=V/(R+1)+1, where:

V = number of votes
R = number of representatives assigned to riding

So Q=10,001.   Any candidate receiving Q or more votes as a first choice is deemed elected; votes in excess of Q are divided among remaining candidates according to the proportionate share of all second choices.

Suppose there are three candidates: A, B, and C.   A and B run for the Dog Party, and C runs for the Cat Party.

Suppose A receives 15,000 first-choice votes while B and C each receive 7,500.   A is automatically elected, and 4,999 votes remain to be divided between B and C according to the share of A's votes each received as a second choice.   Suppose B was marked #2 by 10,000 of A's voters, and C was marked #2 by 5,000 of A's voters.   Then B receives (10,000/15,000)*4,999=3,333 votes, and A receives (5,000/15,000)*4,999=1,666 votes.   Now B has 10,833 votes and A has 9,166 votes.   B has surpassed quorum and is elected; the set number of representatives (2) for the riding has been elected so no further transfer rounds occur.

The thing to note is this: each person who voted for B and C was counted once, but each person who voted for A was counted twice.

The other thing to note is this may be a real problem with the multi-member ridings.   My example is artificial and exaggerated, but I can well imagine two ridings side-by-side in which currently one of the two major parties dominates and the other is often split.   Supposing the ridings are merged; we effectively grant the overall dominant party an advantage of slate-voting: party choices of the "assured" riding now slop over into the "contested" riding.   Where the other party's candidate formerly had a roughly even chance of winning, the dominant party's candidate is more assured of victory.   The representation of people who would choose a Cat Party candidate is diluted and weakened.

I am by no means assured that this will occur frequently, but it strikes me as an abusive potential.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Apr 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Try to imagine Canada under 4 or 5 straight versions of the Bush administration.   Do you think you might reconsider your opinion of the few constraints on the Prime Minister's office?



Priceless....



> On BC STV:



See!!!   Doesn't the complexity of trying to understand that scare anyone away from this?

As was said before, Academic Frankenstein.


----------



## larry Strong (27 Apr 2005)

UnfortuanatlyI have to head out the door this morning for work so I can't formulate a response, but I will be back in 2 weeks
to Ape , I do appologise for miss-reading parts of your post. Older eyes I guess ;D


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Apr 2005)

If Canada had 4-5 Bush type PM's the CF wouldnt have the problems it has today. For better or worse conservatives seem to have a sense for maintaining a strong national defense.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Apr 2005)

As I mentioned in another post, the SVTC will encourage parties to run multiple candidates in ridings to "capture" all the votes and ensure a member of the party is elected.

I wasn't sure what the remark about President Bush was supposed to mean. He is advancing an ambitious agenda through congress and around the world ("Ownership society" and GWOT), which requires a lot of finess since the American Constitution sharply limits the power of any single branch of govenrment.

 In the Canadian context, *it is potentially far easier for an ambitious and determined PM to do so *(see Brian Mulrouney) since there are far fewer checks and balances to his power. Mr Cretien and Mr Dithers provide powerful negative examples of what concentration of power can do; Canada has been adrift since 1993 since there is no leadership at the top, and no mechanisms (like an independent Congress) to move things along. When the Clinton Administration began to go into free fall, Congress took control of the agenda and began to impliment the "Contract with America" program.

Today we see another example of negative consequences, the Liberals are allowing the NDP to hijack the government to stay at the trough for a few more months. I wonder if there are any principled Liberal MPs who will vote for the no confidence motion rather than support an NDP budget? (I also have a very nice bridge in the San Fransisco area for sale....)


----------



## Andyboy (27 Apr 2005)

"But then you have the debate around which parts of the pie the fingers should be in! My main concern is equity - not of result but opportunity. I don't think the government should dictate what toilet paper you use, but I think it's necessary that the government provide all the necessary external preconditions for success - IE quality elementary education, accessible post-secondary education, free (and decent) healthcare, daycare (so kids don't get their primary socialization from TV/friends), and where necessary, welfare - not for the parents necessarily but so the kids aren't trying to do homework when their last meal was 12 hours ago."

Absolutely astounding. Yeah I mean at least you don't think the Gov't should dictate what kind of toilet paper "we" use. Gee, thanks. Thanks too for letting me know that I don't really have much of a chance at succeeding. I only ever had the free healthcare growing up you see. I guess I'm doomed, no point in trying really. Oh well, there's always welfare. I sure wish _someone_ would have done a better job of ensuring I had all of those other things when I was a child.

Absolute bollacks. 

(edited to say welfare, not healthcare)


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Apr 2005)

>daycare (so kids don't get their primary socialization from TV/friends),

Kids shouldn't get their primary socialization from their friends?  Yikes.  Do you think some adult talking down to a preschooler from a shopping list of points taught in some sort of Child Education/Development Program is the solution?


----------



## 2 Cdo (27 Apr 2005)

Andyboy, sorry to correct you but, why do Canadians have this fallacy about free health care? Does my paying over $12,000/year in income taxes PLUS another $700-900/year in Ontario health care premiums sound free?

I would gladly trade in my FREE health care (with appropriate deductions to my tax rate which I believe is somewhere around 30-40%) and Ontario Health Care TAX and invest it in a private system that didn't put me on a waiting list for the most basic of services.

Sorry about the rant but our Health Care system is HORRIBLY broken and needs to be fixed, unfortunately our present government feels that tossing more money at it is the answer!

By the way for anyone who doesn't know, in Ontario Dalton McGuinty claimed that he opened 3 new MRI clinics, and all the sheep cheered. What he didn't tell people was the clinics were private clinics that were starting to make a dent in the backlog of people awaiting MRI's. Now that they are government run, with fully unionized government workers let's see how well they do with further reducing the backlog!

As far as government run daycare, the cost of setting it up and paying the staff will end up costing all of us more in taxes.


----------



## Zipper (27 Apr 2005)

Healthcare is not free. You pay taxes to make it availible to everyone. 

Healthcare in the States is still under backlogs. Especially for those who do not have the money to go to elite private care. Ie. You pay more money, the less time you wait.

So don't get the idea that backlogs are just a Canadian thing. Its everywhere in every system.

Yes it is not running to well and is broken in many ways. It needs fixing. More money will not do it all, nor will dismantling it in favour of private health care. Maybe running a combination in some way may serve? Two tiered. Will it work? Well we seem to be going there regardless, so lets wait and see.

Daycare. If set up properly it will work great. Is it for everyone? No. It works great for those households where both parents are working, which is rapidly becoming the majority. Is it as good as one parent staying home to raise the child? In most cases no. But it is there to help out all those parents who do not make enough regardless of two incomes to have properly trained daycare centers help take care of their kids.


----------



## Guardian (28 Apr 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >daycare (so kids don't get their primary socialization from TV/friends),
> 
> Kids shouldn't get their primary socialization from their friends?   Yikes.   Do you think some adult talking down to a preschooler from a shopping list of points taught in some sort of Child Education/Development Program is the solution?



Brad's got a really good point here.

What bothers me about the way Glorified Ape originally phrased the question was its unspoken assumption - that THE alternative to kids being raised by their friends is by the government.  This also appears to be the assumption behind the much-ballyhooed daycare program.

Whatever happened to kids being raised by their PARENTS???

Yes, sadly in our society both parents must work in both cases to support kids. Instead of perpetuating this problem by raising that family's tax burden to pay for this incoming boondoggle, why not give these families the financial means (and therefore the option to) raise the children THEMSELVES? Give a sizable tax credit for each child born in the house. It'll also represent an incentive to raise our declining birthrate - and it will build families, the basic building block of society, instead of yet another government organization. Raise the tax incentives for charitable giving, and you'll go a long way towards helping those in need, too - Canadians are generous AS INDIVIDUALS. Contrast the Canadian people's reaction to the tsunami with that of the government - or with our measly foreign aid budget...

Why waste billions (you ALL know it will be that high) on yet another government bureaucracy?  Many of us WORK for one, and we all know how efficient it is - and ours is an organization low on the public priority list, long used to scrimping and making do with budget scraps. What serious incentive will there be to keep a high-profile, "nation-defining" daycare system efficient? Look how the government's screwed up health care. This is another gun registry waiting to happen.

Daycare is in demand - and the private sector has been covering this for years now. When will the left-leaning types finally realize big-government means bad business? I give you PetroCan, Air Canada, the aforementioned health-care system....

Government shouldn't be involved in "equitizing" opportunities - we make our own opportunities. The government can only ensure equity of opportunity the same way a lawnmower ensures equity of height - by cutting everyone down to size.


----------



## Andyboy (28 Apr 2005)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Andyboy, sorry to correct you but, why do Canadians have this fallacy about free health care? Does my paying over $12,000/year in income taxes PLUS another $700-900/year in Ontario health care premiums sound free?



I guess that's my fault for not using quotes and smilies to announce my sarcasm to the world. This is where I wold insert a eye roll if it wasn't so gay.


Government funded daycare is possibly the worst idea ever. Our society will benefit from parents taking more responsability for their children, not less.


----------



## Zipper (29 Apr 2005)

Sheesh.

If parents were able to stay home, there is a good chance they would. Although their are a lot of BAD parents out there as well who use TV and video games to keep the "brats" busy while they watch there posion.

In some ways I agree with you Guardian. There will be alot of waste. However we have to have some kind of controls (laws) on private daycares because of the abuses and lack of standards that many daycares operate under (not to mention profit taking). There is a lot of abuse of credetials, as well as of safe enviroments for the kids that goes on. But parents are either ignorant of these things, or so desparate to get their kids looked after in some way while they work that they let it slide.

So what is the answer?

Oh, and about health care. It did not just start in the 80's. It started many years before. It was just entrenched then.


----------



## TCBF (29 Apr 2005)

"not to mention profit taking"

And this is evil, Comrade?


----------



## Guardian (29 Apr 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> Sheesh.
> 
> If parents were able to stay home, there is a good chance they would.



That's why I said given them them means. If parents received somthing like a $3000-$5000 tax credit for every child under the age of 13, then chances are a lot of them would. Regardless, a national daycare system will do nothing whatsoever to give parents this option - in fact, with tax rates rising to cover the cost of the boondoggle, chances are it'll get harder.



			
				Zipper said:
			
		

> Although their are a lot of BAD parents out there as well who use TV and video games to keep the "brats" busy while they watch there posion.



Again, giving parents little choice but to send their kids off to be raised by some government commisar won't address this problem either. If anything it'll aggravate this trend; as parents are forced to spend less time with their children, and as the government takes over more and more of that responsibility, parents will eventually look at kids as being society's responsibility rather than their own. Less personal responsibility for kids = less personal interest in kids. All at taxpayer's expense, of course.



			
				Zipper said:
			
		

> In some ways I agree with you Guardian. There will be alot of waste. However...



There's no "however" where it comes to waste. We elect these guys to manage our money, not waste it. It doesn't matter what it's wasted on; the definition of waste is "throwing something away with no benefit gained for it." Given the choice between doing nothing and waste, the only logical option is to do nothing.



			
				Zipper said:
			
		

> However we have to have some kind of controls (laws) on private daycares because of the abuses and lack of standards that many daycares operate under (not to mention profit taking). There is a lot of abuse of credetials, as well as of safe enviroments for the kids that goes on.



I am in no way against government standards for daycares. It is in society's interest to ensure that these places have a standard to be held to. This can be accomplished through education, legislation and inspection. What I am opposed to is a government-run and funded public daycare system, as it will duplicate a product already provided by the private sector and at far greater cost, while increasing government interference in the way families raise their children. Furthermore, this system will wind up pushing most smaller daycares out of business; the only ones that will survive will be either those that can beat subsidized government rates by cutting corners and hiding the results from the inspectors, or high-heeled "spare nothing" daycares that appeal to the rich by offering a premium, expensive product that the average Canadian can't access. In short, two-tier daycare!! 

And what's wrong with profit-taking? Profit is a reward for performance and maximizing profit is an incentive to efficiency. 



			
				Zipper said:
			
		

> But parents are either ignorant of these things, or so desparate to get their kids looked after in some way while they work that they let it slide.
> 
> So what is the answer?



NOT a government-run child registry, as I've said. Give parents incentives and the means to do the job themselves. This may be a shock to the left, but most parents can, actually, raise children competently without government help. It's worked throughout human history, after all.


----------



## Andyboy (29 Apr 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> If parents were able to stay home, there is a good chance they would. Although their are a lot of BAD parents out there as well who use TV and video games to keep the "brats" busy while they watch there posion.



Um what? What exactly do you base this nugget of  opinion on or os this just another "feeling" you have?

Sheesh indeed.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Apr 2005)

Guardian said:
			
		

> NOT a government-run* child registry*, as I've said. Give parents incentives and the means to do the job themselves. This may be a shock to the left, but most parents can, actually, raise children competently without government help. It's worked throughout human history, after all.



We all know how well the Gun Registry has worked.........


----------



## aesop081 (29 Apr 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> We all know how well the Gun Registry has worked.........



I know what you mean by that but imagine a world where you need a liscence to have a child !  To get that liscence you would have to pass tests to prove you could do it properly.........that might help cut down on deadbeat parents who neglect their kids and may cut down on the number of welfare bums who get pregnant in order to get a bigger check.  Sounds harsh but maybe not all that far fetched.......


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (29 Apr 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> Healthcare in the States is still under backlogs. Especially for those who do not have the money to go to elite private care. Ie. You pay more money, the less time you wait.
> 
> So don't get the idea that backlogs are just a Canadian thing. Its everywhere in every system.



You've said this on two threads (that I've seen) and refused to provide any support for it.

I checked: the OECD says that you are making it up: specifically, that "no significant wait times" exist for elective surgery in the United States.  If you skip to Annex 4, it even explains why.  I'm sure this won't change your argument, though.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/31/10/17256025.pdf


----------



## Zipper (30 Apr 2005)

Guardian said:
			
		

> That's why I said given them them means. If parents received something like a $3000-$5000 tax credit for every child under the age of 13, then chances are a lot of them would. Regardless, a national daycare system will do nothing whatsoever to give parents this option - in fact, with tax rates rising to cover the cost of the boondoggle, chances are it'll get harder.



Agreed. Question is, can we afford to even give parents this much? There is also the problem of lower income parents having more babies in order to get government money available now. You can imagine the amount of lower income kids if we raised that amount?



> Again, giving parents little choice but to send their kids off to be raised by some government commissar won't address this problem either. If anything it'll aggravate this trend; as parents are forced to spend less time with their children, and as the government takes over more and more of that responsibility, parents will eventually look at kids as being society's responsibility rather than their own. Less personal responsibility for kids = less personal interest in kids. All at taxpayer's expense, of course.



commissar's? LOL! Your starting to sound like some of the others around here. The thing is about daycare and their "intentions" (however misguided) is that it gives those parents who NEED it in order to go to work the choice. There is often little choice out there right now because of lousy standards endangering children, perceived psycho Aunt Mable's private daycare center, or way to expensive for them to afford (tax credit not withstanding). 



> There's no "however" where it comes to waste. We elect these guys to manage our money, not waste it. It doesn't matter what it's wasted on; the definition of waste is "throwing something away with no benefit gained for it." Given the choice between doing nothing and waste, the only logical option is to do nothing.



Which would of course explain the last 30 or so years of our military. Oh wait...     ...wasn't that waste?



> I am in no way against government standards for daycares. It is in society's interest to ensure that these places have a standard to be held to. This can be accomplished through education, legislation and inspection. What I am opposed to is a government-run and funded public daycare system, as it will duplicate a product already provided by the private sector and at far greater cost, while increasing government interference in the way families raise their children. Furthermore, this system will wind up pushing most smaller daycares out of business; the only ones that will survive will be either those that can beat subsidized government rates by cutting corners and hiding the results from the inspectors, or high-heeled "spare nothing" daycares that appeal to the rich by offering a premium, expensive product that the average Canadian can't access. In short, two-tier daycare!!



I agree. Standardizing and ENFORCMENT would be the best bet. There are many well run programs out there already, the "lowend" scam ones just need to either shape up or ship out.



> And what's wrong with profit-taking? Profit is a reward for performance and maximizing profit is an incentive to efficiency.



There are a whole slew of laws that I could go into. But endangerment and fraud would be two key ones. There are alot of high profit companies out there that are not in any way efficient. 



> NOT a government-run child registry, as I've said. Give parents incentives and the means to do the job themselves. This may be a shock to the left, but most parents can, actually, raise children competently without government help. It's worked throughout human history, after all.



Agreed for the most part. But please stay away from history examples, as you will find the child death rates out of neglect and other nastier things rather high. You could blame government intravention on the zero tolerance in today's society for even one child getting hurt. But then you'd have to be a parent to understand that one.


----------



## Zipper (30 Apr 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> I checked: the OECD says that you are making it up: specifically, that "no significant wait times" exist for elective surgery in the United States.   If you skip to Annex 4, it even explains why.   I'm sure this won't change your argument, though.
> 
> http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/31/10/17256025.pdf



Good source Gault. But no it doesn't. 

The problem as I have said before is in the numbers. They can be used and twisted by anyone. No, I don't think the OECD would have done so. But what numbers did they get?

The problem I have in believing all those numbers you are throwing about is the fact that on another subject, that of mad cow, the US according to their "numbers" has never had one case of it. Interesting that a country with some of the largest herds in the world would never have a case? 

There are other examples of their "uses" of numbers. But this could drag on far to long. Lets just agree to disagree with this issue and move on to other discussions. ;D 

Kind of like Tom (the fascist) and I.


----------



## TCBF (30 Apr 2005)

"Kind of like Tom (the fascist) and I." 

 Ha! Commie Rat! I caught you Red (no pun intended) handed!

"The problem as I have said before is in the numbers. They can be used and twisted by anyone."

Only by Pinko Gun Control Commisars! 

 ;D

Tom


----------



## 2 Cdo (30 Apr 2005)

Andyboy, my mistake. Feeling a little dopey that day, hey sometimes it happens!


----------



## Guardian (30 Apr 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> Agreed. Question is, can we afford to even give parents this much?



Absolutely! The government has proven, again and again, that it has plenty of money to throw around. $2 billion for the gun registry, $5 billion on this daycare program, $4.5 billion for NDP support - that's $11.5 billion right there, and I'm not even trying. That would cover $10 000 for each of 1 _million_ kids. But we'd have to have a sea change in government here in Canada to have that happen - we'd need a smaller government with the attitude that we can actually [gasp!!] TRUST citizens to look after themselves. I've got no problems with a social safety net, but when the government starts trying to raise our kids for us, then it's too activist.



			
				Zipper said:
			
		

> There is also the problem of lower income parents having more babies in order to get government money available now. You can imagine the amount of lower income kids if we raised that amount?



As opposed to our declining birthrate lessening demand for this new daycare system? 



			
				Zipper said:
			
		

> commissar's? LOL! Your starting to sound like some of the others around here. The thing is about daycare and their "intentions" (however misguided) is that it gives those parents who NEED it in order to go to work the choice. There is often little choice out there right now because of lousy standards endangering children, perceived psycho Aunt Mable's private daycare center, or way to expensive for them to afford (tax credit not withstanding).



My choice of words was not flippant - it was intentional. I see a rather disturbing trend in social work and education to inculcate children with "values" that their parents may not share, and I think that the daycare system is going to turn into an excuse to buy children away from their parents so they don't wind up having their values shaped by gun-lovin' baccy-chewin' racist homophobic rednecks. If we don't show them the right path, they might even grow up and vote Conservative!! We must act now!!! Instead, the Government's enlightened educational committees will craft a suitably fuzzy and warm curriculum for these kids. Given this government's ethical standards, darn right I'm scared of this idea.

As for abuse in private-run daycares, that's what standards and enforcement is for. The problem is that socially activist governments, because they focus overwhelmingly on individual rights and freedoms, lose sight of the values of personal responsibility, social duty, and the right of society to be protected from crime. That's why socialists are soft on crime, while it's conservatives who call for tougher enforcement and punishment (and support cops, armies, and so on). Until Canada as a whole gets tougher on criminals, and prison is again a thing to be avoided, we can't talk about standards and enforcement. Again, we need a change in governmental philosophy. 



			
				Zipper said:
			
		

> There are a whole slew of laws that I could go into. But endangerment and fraud would be two key ones. There are alot of high profit companies out there that are not in any way efficient.



I give you HRDC, the gun registry, NDHQ / DND, Public Works.... Government's record is, if anything, worse.



			
				Zipper said:
			
		

> There are a whole
> Agreed for the most part. But please stay away from history examples, as you will find the child death rates out of neglect and other nastier things rather high. You could blame government intravention on the zero tolerance in today's society for even one child getting hurt. But then you'd have to be a parent to understand that one.



Well, I may not be a parent yet, but I have five younger siblings, the youngest of whom is still in elementary school. I think I do understand about keeping kids safe, thank you very much. And when I'm a parent, I'd like to ensure their safety myself, thank you very much, by choosing for myself how they will be raised - instead of trusting a government that puts killers and pedophiles back on the street after only a few years in prison, that has dragged its heels on a sexual assaulter registry for years... 

My whole point is this. Give parents the means to raise their kids themselves, and ensure they have choices - isn't that what democracy's all about? We're starting down the road to a Canada Health Act-type monopoly for child care - that's not giving choices! And your points about lower income families carry very little weight with me, when I consider the tax burden they're under and how those taxes are spent. Stop wasting those families' money and give it back to them, I say.


----------



## Andyboy (30 Apr 2005)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Andyboy, my mistake. Feeling a little dopey that day, hey sometimes it happens!



No sweat, it happened on two different threads so it was probably me.

Zipper,

I believe that Horse Guards (former and current) are communist sympathisers and should be investigated by the NIS. 

Pretty crazy right? WEll except for politicians we as a society generally rely on evidence other than anecdotal as proof of something being true. Other than your posts I have nothing to back that statement up and there is a good chance that very few people are going to believe me. 

For the record I do not believe that Horse Guards are any more or less likely to be communist sympathisers than anyone else, St.Zipper not withstanding.


----------



## Zipper (30 Apr 2005)

HA! Good comeback Tom. 

Actually I think both sides are to blame for way to much use of "twisted" numbers.



			
				Guardian said:
			
		

> Absolutely! The government has proven, again and again, that it has plenty of money to throw around. $2 billion for the gun registry, $5 billion on this daycare program, $4.5 billion for NDP support - that's $11.5 billion right there, and I'm not even trying. That would cover $10 000 for each of 1 _million_ kids. But we'd have to have a sea change in government here in Canada to have that happen - we'd need a smaller government with the attitude that we can actually [gasp!!] TRUST citizens to look after themselves. I've got no problems with a social safety net, but when the government starts trying to raise our kids for us, then it's too activist.



Ok agreed for the most part on that. However, why do you keep seeing these possable daycares as "government" education centers instead of just places where daycare professionals can take care of kids on a level playing field as far as earning, standards and care are concerned? If you where so worried about what is being taught in school, then you wouldn't even have your kids IN school, considering those are (provincial) government run.



> As opposed to our declining birthrate lessening demand for this new daycare system?



Ok have to fall into this one. Whats wrong with our declining birth rate? Its actually starting to happen worldwide as more and more countries become "westernized" and people start making the decisions to use birth control and/or choosing not to have kids. I would consider it more of the pendulum swinging back the other way after hundreds of years of unchecked procreation. 



> My choice of words was not flippant - it was intentional. I see a rather disturbing trend in social work and education to inculcate children with "values" that their parents may not share, and I think that the daycare system is going to turn into an excuse to buy children away from their parents so they don't wind up having their values shaped by gun-lovin' baccy-chewin' racist homophobic rednecks. If we don't show them the right path, they might even grow up and vote Conservative!! We must act now!!! Instead, the Government's enlightened educational committees will craft a suitably fuzzy and warm curriculum for these kids. Given this government's ethical standards, darn right I'm scared of this idea.



I realized that, and I think your looking at things from a rather paranoid point. I know, as I have done so myself a few times on this board. As for being scared of something, I would say the "gun-lovin' baccy-chewin' racist homophobic rednecks" scare the crap out of me. But then if it was proven to me that the government was going into "child re-education" for the purposes of turning out little left wing nuts, I too would be afraid of that as well. Think for themselves, and question everything is what I say.



> As for abuse in private-run daycares, that's what standards and enforcement is for. The problem is that socially activist governments, because they focus overwhelmingly on individual rights and freedoms, lose sight of the values of personal responsibility, social duty, and the right of society to be protected from crime. That's why socialists are soft on crime, while it's conservatives who call for tougher enforcement and punishment (and support cops, armies, and so on). Until Canada as a whole gets tougher on criminals, and prison is again a thing to be avoided, we can't talk about standards and enforcement. Again, we need a change in governmental philosophy.



Wait a second? If they are focusing overwhelmingly on individual rights and freedoms, losing sight of the values of personal responsibility, social duty, and the right of society to be protected from crime, and you (generalize as right wingers) guys are spouting the same thing, how in hell are you so far apart? I agree that each focuses more on one thing as opposed to another, but thats crazy. More social thinking people are not necessarily soft on crime as opposed to soft (naive) on people who have either got a bum rap, or they see hope in rehabilitation. They realize (most do) that these things are not always right and you have to be tough sometimes. As for prison being a place to be avoided, even with a death sentence, hard labour, and whippings every night, you will not get rid of crime. Their will always be people, for one reason or another, who chose that path.



> I give you HRDC, the gun registry, NDHQ / DND, Public Works.... Government's record is, if anything, worse.



In many cases I agree. It doesn't happen in all cases however. (Public works) Deregulation of power, water, etc has proven to be far more costly to the consumer then when regulated by government.



> Well, I may not be a parent yet, but I have five younger siblings, the youngest of whom is still in elementary school. I think I do understand about keeping kids safe, thank you very much. And when I'm a parent, I'd like to ensure their safety myself, thank you very much, by choosing for myself how they will be raised - instead of trusting a government that puts killers and pedophiles back on the street after only a few years in prison, that has dragged its heels on a sexual assaulter registry for years...



Couldn't agree more. It pisses me off that a child cannot go outside without having to wear a helmet (exaggerated I know), or be under the watchful eye of a paranoid parent. I don't believe that it is governments fault on crime that makes people feel this way as opposed to the news media pumping up everyones fears over a few isolated incidents. Give kids proper boundaries, and they'll do fine. Push on them to cause you to go grey sometimes, but for the more part they do alright. The idea of a grade 1 student walking two blocks to school nowadays is just unheard of. Its a shame.



> My whole point is this. Give parents the means to raise their kids themselves, and ensure they have choices - isn't that what democracy's all about? We're starting down the road to a Canada Health Act-type monopoly for child care - that's not giving choices! And your points about lower income families carry very little weight with me, when I consider the tax burden they're under and how those taxes are spent. Stop wasting those families' money and give it back to them, I say.



Actually most low income earners are not taxed at all in many fields. In fact they get quite a bit of money. My family (Single mom) would never been able to survive if it wasn't that way. 

Also, I don't know yet. But is this idea of daycare the same as medicare where you cannot have privately run daycares? Or is it a two tied system right off the bat?

As for Democracy. I wish Kirkhill were around more. He's the poli-sci boy. But I believe that democracy (as we know it) is what you would call "mob" rule.



			
				Andyboy said:
			
		

> Pretty crazy right? Well except for politicians we as a society generally rely on evidence other than anecdotal as proof of something being true. Other than your posts I have nothing to back that statement up and there is a good chance that very few people are going to believe me.



You rely on evidence? The problem is, what evidence? If I may even scratch the topic of global warming, which I don't even want to go there, then it would seem that evidence is the last thing that you want. People with ideas want the evidence to prove THEIR ideas correct. When it doesn't, they either make up the numbers, or come up with "evidence" that refutes the accepted ideas. So it comes down to whichever side can throw the most "evidence" out there to make people believe one side or the other. Occasionally some evidence comes along that is so clear that everyone (except the hardline fringe) actually has to accept it. And that happens rarely.


----------



## TCBF (30 Apr 2005)

The May 16 2005 copy of "The Western Standard" has a cover of "The Libranos."  It is a classic.  So is the four-page size pull out "Libranos" poster.  No doubt a collectors item.  Asuming the supreme court does not in future ban it as 'Hate' literature.


----------



## Zipper (30 Apr 2005)

Tom Tom Tom. You really need to read other things. its no wonder you think the way you do. ;D

Oh, and good quote you chose there. It speaks volumes about our military these days.


----------



## TCBF (30 Apr 2005)

I read the Saurday "National Post" every week!


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (1 May 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> Good source Gault. But no it doesn't.
> 
> The problem as I have said before is in the numbers. They can be used and twisted by anyone. No, I don't think the OECD would have done so. But what numbers did they get?
> 
> ...



We're not talking about Mad Cow, a difference of opinion, manipulating statistics, or anything else but your claim that the US has medical wait times that are comparable to Canada's.

Your claim, pardon my french, is complete horsesh*t.  That statistics say so.  Every shred of anecdotal evidence I have ever heard, including the experiences of people very close to me, say so.  Even the free (black?) market says so: have you ever heard of "Timely Medical Alternatives"?  Here's a little from their website:





> ... the founders of Timely Medical Alternatives Inc. also recognize that there are some 875,000 Canadians currently on the waiting list for referrals to specialists or for medical procedures.
> 
> Timely Medical Alternatives Inc. is a privately held company in Canada. We provide Canadians with medically sound options to spending months - or longer - waiting for access to care within the public system.
> 
> ...


http://www.timelymedical.ca/

Apparently, through some kind of magical ability to transcend time and space, they are not encountering the waiting lists that you claim exist.  Of course, Occam might suggest an alternative hypothesis, which is that you are full of, um, dogma.

It's not a question of "agreeing to disagree": there is no subjective analysis here.  You are denying _objective reality_ and instead burying your head in the sand.  THIS is what is wrong ...


----------



## Zipper (1 May 2005)

Well after reading that, and your source. I will bow to defeat on this matter.  

However (and I always have a however ;D), it still does not quiet my original argument that there are entire segements of US society that do not have access to that system because of cost. They may have no waiting lists down there, but it is not because of efficencies. It is because there are whole droves of people who do not go because they simply cannot afford to do so. As well as many middle Americans who do not have any insurance at all.

http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/yourhealth/Articles/a2003-07-02-bruised.html

The next one I would take with a grain of salt, although it is from the WHO. But passed through the Democrats who may/may not have changed anything.

http://home.earthlink.net/~acisney2/id30.html


----------



## old medic (1 May 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Your claim, pardon my french, is complete horsesh*t.  That statistics say so.  Every shred of anecdotal evidence I have ever heard, including the experiences of people very close to me, say so.  Even the free (black?) market says so: have you ever heard of "Timely Medical Alternatives"?  Here's a little from their website:http://www.timelymedical.ca/



What statistics are these ?

OK, I have to call you on that.  Your quoting a for profit company 
who's existence is tied to claiming there is a big wait list. Then collecting referral fees from other 
for profit companies.

Here are some credible quotes and points from a proper study on waiting times:

# Two provinces (BC and Nova Scotia) have published waiting time studies, while four have completed focused internal studies. These studies are largely descriptive in that they compile and report on existing *non-standardized data.*
# Most jurisdictions complained of *a lack of adequate data and benchmarks* for appropriate waiting times.

There was *no agreement as to the single best method to define appropriate waiting times*, though clinical evidence and public opinion were both considered important.

waiting list data reported that systematic *means of assessing appropriateness are used in only 13% of service areas*

Summary of Key Findings

    * *In Canada at the present time it is impossible either to understand the true magnitude of wait lists or genuinely and rationally manage the patients on those lists. Few current wait lists in Canada, or elsewhere, are sufficiently defined and standardized to provide inter-temporally consistent and geographically comparable databases.* In the absence of such information, provincial/territorial activity has been largely limited to addressing specific wait list 'problems' (often revealed by specific episodes of media attention) by short term increases in funding.

 Final Observations

 We simply have no reliable systems in place with which to assess what are, at the moment, still largely self-reported claims. There is a critical need for the systematic development of information systems populated with consistent and reliable data, that can form the basis for more appropriate management strategies, and that can provide a reliable 'early warning' system for clinical and policy decision-makers. With few exceptions, *our current understanding of the 'wait list situation' in Canada is so totally dependent on data of suspect quality, drawn from a variety of ad hoc sources, based on inconsistent definitions, used for a variety of purposes, and overseen by no one, that it is little wonder that we find so much confusion
*

Full report is 350 pages. 

Waiting Lists and Waiting Times for Health Care in Canada
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/media/releases/waiting_list.html#preface


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (1 May 2005)

old medic,

I think you missed the first part of this: Zipper was claiming that the US has wait times just like Canada's (in the context of weighing the relative merits of privatized vs. Stalinist healthcare).  I called him on it and said that the OECD data says otherwise (i.e., that there are wait lists in Canada but not in the US).

I provided the information on that company as further evidence of the difference: the mere existence of a copmany that charges Canadians on waiting lists to immediately receive treatment at private facilities in the US (and Canada, to some extent) is pretty strong evidence that the public system has a problem with waiting lists that the privte system doesn't.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (1 May 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> Well after reading that, and your source. I will bow to defeat on this matter.
> 
> However (and I always have a however ;D), it still does not quiet my original argument that there are entire segements of US society that do not have access to that system because of cost. They may have no waiting lists down there, but it is not because of efficencies. It is because there are whole droves of people who do not go because they simply cannot afford to do so. As well as many middle Americans who do not have any insurance at all.



There is a lot of scare-mongering about the American medical care system.  The vast majority of the middle and upper classes are covered by private healthcare through employers ... the poorest and the aged/diabled are covered by Medicare and Medicaid.  Moreover, anyone can show up in any emergency room in the US and it is _illegal _for them _not _to provide treatment.  The only people that aren't covered by *insurance *are those that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, do not have healthcare in their benefits package, and have made the _decision _not to buy private individual healthcare, as they (obviously) feel there are better uses of their money.


----------



## Zipper (1 May 2005)

Good post Old medic. 

There is a lot of scare mongering on both side of the border. While I agree with you for the most part. Isn't it a shame that there are those who fall between the cracks at all, just because they do not have insurance? You saying that many "choose" not to take it. But what happens when something happens suddenly because of their poor choice at the time? We at least cover that.

Now I won't go bashing them on this because we have our own problems up here in that dentist are not covered under our system, and thus we have droves of people here that do not get the care they need because they do not have benefits to cover the costs. So on that, we are equal with the States.

Since we have a two tied system already in many proviences (even though those more "left" then me refuse to see that), why don't we see how it works for awhile and whether or not it actually can be made to work? Also instead of scrapping the entire system, why is it that many things covered under health care are in many cases unnecassary or just plain silly? Are there things we can decide not to cover (like dentists, plastic surgery for non-life threatening cases) so as to put money towards other things? And most of all, get rid of the numerous layers of burocracy that sap much of the money before it gets down to the bed level. Just some ideas. My idea here is, like the military...         ..."this is what we have, lets make it work and get on with the job.".

Its interesting how we have people here who wish to move to a non-medicare system, and the States there is increasingly a demand to move towards one. I guess the larger the population, the harder it is to make work.


----------



## Infanteer (1 May 2005)

As I've argued time and time again, the States suffer from the same problem that we do - Your health care is managed by a big bureaucracy.  In the States, it happens to be Private (HMOs) while in Canada, it is Public (the Province).  Either way, they both suck and they are making health decision for you.

In my opinion we need a public funded system that is universal and managed by the individual (and includes incentives for good management of health dollars).  I could care less who delivers the service, as long as it is timely and of high quality.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 May 2005)

I have noticed that of all the "fringe" privately-provided services for which I pay out of pocket or am covered by private insurance, I don't have to wait long, if at all.  I schedule an appointment (if one is necessary) in the next few days and go.


----------



## Zipper (3 May 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> In my opinion we need a public funded system that is universal and managed by the individual (and includes incentives for good management of health dollars).   I could care less who delivers the service, as long as it is timely and of high quality.



Ok I'll bite. How can you administer a system like that, as well as look after those who cannot afford to pay into the public fund? Also, (not that our system now isn't immune. Far from it.) how would you avoid rampant corruption and fraud? And how would you avoid the best Doctors going to the hospitals in the "better" parts of town and leaving the dregs to take care of the less fortunate (not that this isn't happening to a point today.)?

Brad - You either live in a small town or have the best (or worst) doctors availible. I have to make dentist appointments at least 2 weeks in advance, and at least a week for my doctor. Nothing I can't handle mind you.


----------



## Infanteer (3 May 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> Ok I'll bite. How can you administer a system like that, as well as look after those who cannot afford to pay into the public fund? Also, (not that our system now isn't immune. Far from it.) how would you avoid rampant corruption and fraud? And how would you avoid the best Doctors going to the hospitals in the "better" parts of town and leaving the dregs to take care of the less fortunate (not that this isn't happening to a point today.)?



http://army.ca/forums/threads/18097.0.html

Here is the "plan" I have been espousing all along - will it work?  I'm not sure, but it is a hell of alot better then all the scare-mongering and politicians promising to fix the system by dumping more money into it.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (3 May 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> http://army.ca/forums/threads/18097.0.html
> 
> Here is the "plan" I have been espousing all along - will it work?  I'm not sure, but it is a heck of alot better then all the scare-mongering and politicians promising to fix the system by dumping more money into it.



And here, too: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28296.0.html

The deja-vu was real!!! (And I thought I was losing my mind ...)

In terms of the more general topic, there IS however, a better way:



> the Dungeons Death and Taxes party - whose registered address is tourist attraction the London Dungeons - is offering a suitably lurid manifesto.
> 
> It pledges to reintroduce hanging, "but only for minor offences such as writing graffiti and dropping litter". Murderers and those guilty of improper use of mobile text abbreviations will be disembowelled.
> 
> The new school leaving age would be nine, with "thickie" children forced to take up manual labour. The party also pledges to occupy and annexe France, and to have tax rates of 90%.


 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4494439.stm   :skull:


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 May 2005)

>And how would you avoid the best Doctors going to the hospitals in the "better" parts of town and leaving the dregs to take care of the less fortunate

First, I think you need to dispel the notion of "dregs" from your mind.  Medical schools don't exactly strive to obtain an exact cross-section of society in their annual intakes of students.  Second, with more privatization - and hence more opportunity - I would expect fewer doctors to emigrate, or even move between provinces.  I suppose that increasing the ratio of doctors per capita is good regardless where they practice.


----------



## Kat Stevens (3 May 2005)

Remember, your doctor only needed 80% to pass.... ;D

Kat


----------



## a_majoor (3 May 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >And how would you avoid the best Doctors going to the hospitals in the "better" parts of town and leaving the dregs to take care of the less fortunate
> 
> First, I think you need to dispel the notion of "dregs" from your mind.  Medical schools don't exactly strive to obtain an exact cross-section of society in their annual intakes of students.  Second, with more privatization - and hence more opportunity - I would expect fewer doctors to emigrate, or even move between provinces.  I suppose that increasing the ratio of doctors per capita is good regardless where they practice.



In any market, Doctors go to "where the money is". Under the current system, where OHIP pays Doctors by the number of people they see (with the mind blowing result that a Dr running a wart clinic can make more money than a cardiac surgeon), the incentive is for Doctors to abandon rural areas and go to Toronto. (Orangeville has a great hospital in mothballs; abandoned because there are no Drs willing to work there). As a checksum, neither cities or rural areas seem to suffer an imbalance of Dentists, who do not operate under a government monopoly.

Obviously, in the initial stages of privatization, the citizens of Orangeville will have an incentive to pay almost any price to get medical staff for the hospital, while millions of consumers in Toronto will rapidly depress the price of medical service as they shop around among the plethora of Doctors. Some Doctors will see the writing on the wall (they got into medical school because they are smart, after all), and move to Orangeville or the rural areas where they can make a better living than in Toronto. Equalibrium will occur after a period of a few years.

While this will be distressing for people forced to live through it, the system has been systemicly distorted for so many decades that only a severe shock can fix it.


----------



## Zipper (3 May 2005)

Brad - Sorry. Poor choice of words there.

I still think the existing system can work, albeit not in its present form. Throwing more money at it has proved to do little but increase the problems as our population grows. Scrapping the system as well will do little but harm a great number of people, especially in the short term. The whole idea of it in the first place was to allow everyone to have access to healthcare. The problem is, its become its own monster as a cash cow for government (taxes). And since when did any government want to give up taxes when they didn't want too (GST)? 

I agree with Majoor about a severe shock in order to fix it. I just prefer to have the shock in somewhere other then dismantling it entirely. There has to be other ways.


----------



## Infanteer (3 May 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> I still think the existing system can work, albeit not in its present form.



What is that supposed to mean?     ???

Talk about contradiction.



> There has to be other ways



Well, lets hear them then.   I've taken the time to research another proposal and support it as a viable alternative.   You've said you don't like it.   Are you going to give us a better idea, or just be one of the sheep who cheers when politicians get into an orgy of "health care dollar dumping" for political cred (something you just admitted doesn't work).


----------



## Zipper (3 May 2005)

Sorry Inf. I didn't write the message to knock your idea. I'm still chewing on it. There is alot of stuff there. 

Wow. Just finished reading it for the third time.

The MSA idea is not bad. I even think I like it. Its similiar to what the US is trying to do, but not quite. By keeping the medicare system that we have alive, but moving it into the realm of "emergency" care (REALLY emergency) alone makes alot of sense and would get rid of alot of undo spending. Then going to your system of cards for everything mundane as well as being controlled by you, (abuse it if you wish) is very good. I like the fact that you can either carry it over to the next year, or take it out to use as you see fit. Thus you can spend it and roll it back into the economy, or save it for RRSP's and thus give many people (who are smart) a more secure future. I'll leave it to you whether you want to repost it here or not.

The problem I see is the unions. There is NO WAY they are going to release their hold on what they have. I might also look at increasing the 1000 dollar part for those over a certain age because of the fact that drugs cost a freaking fortune. I'm going to mull it over some more and think up some other ideas to go along with it.

Wow. Bet your surprised I agreed with that eh?


----------



## Zipper (4 May 2005)

Ok some questions.

First. If you give people control of their own money/destiny as far as treatment is concerned, would that not also mean you would have to come up with some way of making clear how much it cost for each kind of treatment? That would be a very long list or brochure.

Now some examples that I would need clarification on. I'll use myself as the example and my own visits to the doctor. I'll also break this up in a few message as it may get way to long otherwise.

Back in high school (a long time ago) I had a major outbreak of warts on all of the middle fingers of both hands. My initial visit to my doctor would be covered my MSA card (?). Once he refers me to a dermatologist, would that also be on my MSA card? Or public? My visits to the specialist involved having an acid based paste put on each affected area and then taped up, with subsequent visits every few days to have more paste applied and to monitor my progress. Is the paste and my further visits on public or MSA? This went on for 4 weeks until the problem was satisfactorily taken care of. So it probably cost after all was said and done, quite a bit. Public or MSA?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (4 May 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> Ok some questions.
> 
> First. If you give people control of their own money/destiny as far as treatment is concerned, would that not also mean you would have to come up with some way of making clear how much it cost for each kind of treatment?


No.



> That would be a very long list or brochure.
> 
> Now some examples that I would need clarification on. I'll use myself as the example and my own visits to the doctor. I'll also break this up in a few message as it may get way to long otherwise.
> 
> Back in high school (a long time ago) I had a major outbreak of warts on all of the middle fingers of both hands. My initial visit to my doctor would be covered my MSA card (?).


If you wanted it to (presumably yes).



> Once he refers me to a dermatologist, would that also be on my MSA card?


Same answer.



> Or public?


It _is _publicly-funded.



> My visits to the specialist involved having an acid based paste put on each affected area and then taped up, with subsequent visits every few days to have more paste applied and to monitor my progress. Is the paste and my further visits on public or MSA? This went on for 4 weeks until the problem was satisfactorily taken care of. So it probably cost after all was said and done, quite a bit. Public or MSA?


It is all paid publicly: it is the delivery that is private.  The point is to reduce the strain on the medical system (i.e., doctor/hospital visits), by making less-critical claims (i.e., broken fingernails) discretionary.


----------

