# An apology to all Canadians



## Padraig OCinnead (29 Jun 2004)

I would like to say sorry to all Canadians for the absolutely foolish thing that my fellow Ontarions did last night.


----------



## K. Ash (29 Jun 2004)

In that case, I should offer mine as well for the foolish thing my fellow Newfs did. 

I guess suckers for punishment.


----------



## Limpy (29 Jun 2004)

No need to apologize. Soon they will suffer and know the error of there ways (someday). It's just too bad people like us have to go down with them.


----------



## Scratch_043 (29 Jun 2004)

I offer my apologies for the actions of Waterloo Region.


----------



## spenco (30 Jun 2004)

I apoligize for my riding, Burnaby-Douglas, it went NDP (shudders)          :'(


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Jun 2004)

Leeds/Grenville ....conservative by more than 5000 votes!!!!!!


----------



## canuck101 (30 Jun 2004)

I apoligize for my riding of Ottawa South it went to David Mcguinty


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Jun 2004)

Sorry my friend,but not even an apology will do for electing another Mcguinty :evil:


----------



## canuck101 (30 Jun 2004)

That is very true 

the liberals had over 1200 volunteers in ottawa south a small army my family is only 4 voters i tried my best but lost


----------



## Andyd513 (30 Jun 2004)

My city was a NDP sweep except my riding.. liberal 

You guys shouldn't appologize, you can't control that the people around you can be easily manipulated/scared by T.V. adds.


----------



## Slim (30 Jun 2004)

Gents

It can't last forever. The BabyBoomers will soon be gone and then real thinking may once again grace us with its presence.

It shouldn't be yourselves saying sorry...It sdhould be the selfish, overfed, BMW driving twits who can't think of anything past their own  noses and have no concept of national responsability. :skull:

Enough said!

Slim


----------



## Korus (30 Jun 2004)

So a vote for the NDP is really just a vote for the Conservatives, so I should vote Liberal.. huh. I still don't follow.

But the conservative MP won in my riding, so I'm rather quite content.


----------



## Smoothbore (30 Jun 2004)

Harper failed   because his caucas lost the progressive part of the PC movement - that scared the undecided into voting Fiberal. Harper himself would be a good candidate. But Canadians should benefit from a minority gov't, unless the NDP and Grits form a coalition majority..
Another reason Conservatives lost is because as it  turns out, Liberals can also play dirty, they shouldn't have started with the negative ads.


----------



## Scratch_043 (30 Jun 2004)

Smoothbore said:
			
		

> Harper failed   because his caucas lost the progressive part of the PC movement - that scared the undecided into voting Fiberal. Harper himself would be a good candidate. But Canadians should benefit from a minority gov't, unless the NDP and Grits form a coalition majority..
> Another reason Conservatives lost is because as it  turns out, Liberals can also play dirty, they shouldn't have started with the negative ads.


hehehe, they don't even have enough for that, they still need 1 more to get it.

And lucky for them, there is one individual, one who has something against the CPC.


----------



## nULL (30 Jun 2004)

Harper lost because he was rude, boisterous and bragging about how likely it was that he'd be in control of a majority government. The conservatives need a new leader, who's a personnable kind of guy instead of mr. invincible unhuman perfect politician.  They also need to distinguish themselves from the hard-ass republican-lite image they hold, and find out where they really stand on issues such as abortion, gay rights, etc. 

My own opinion here, but your "I'm right and the rest of the country just needs to wake up and realize that what I am doing is the right thing" attitude could just as easily be shared with an Iraqi insurgent. You have your opinions, fine, but don't assume the rest of the counry is as ignorant as you would make them out to be. The only people who you can blame for misinformation are the political parties who thrive on it. The liberal commericials in particular were bad for this, but the conservatives didn't really convince me that Martin was the Mr.Waste guy they made him out to be. 

I mean, he was the most frugal finance minister in years, which is probably why the markets like him so much.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Jun 2004)

nULL is right.  If we expect people who voted Liberal/NDP/Green to respect the desire of the Conservative Party supporters for change, we should respect their votes, no matter how absurd we feel many of their platforms or records of good government are.  I must say that I am disappointed by the quality of the debate presented by all Parties.  At least the Greens where adamant in projecting their platform to Canadians, as opposed to mainly sniping the others.  The result of this poor election is the poorest voter turnout since Confederation.  I think the only real winners are the citizens of Surrey who voted Chuck Cadmen in; they are getting an MP who is in an enviable position of being able to effectively act as a representative rather than a party stooge.

As for the distaste in the mouth of alot of electors, I still feel that a triple-E Senate is the answer to many concerns about this.  Pissed because a mostly all conservative West loses out in the Commons because 181 seats (over half) lie in two provinces.  A Triple-E Senate, which would give approximately 40% of the elected seats to the West in an Upper House that is equally effective in legislative abilities would put a check on the power of the Commons and its somewhat skewed form of representation.  Try selling the idea of going to 20% of the seats from a current 50% to people in Ontario and Quebec.  I just wish a premier like Ralph Klein will have the stones to hold a referendum or an election the next time Alberta needs a new senator, and see what happens if the Federal government, possessing the de jure power of appointment, trys to go against the wishes of the citizens of that province.


----------



## Gunnar (1 Jul 2004)

If the 11 years of waste under the Liberals weren't enough to convince you, I can't see that the ads would help.  Funny how nobody remembers the news.

HRDC scandal
Advertising scandal
Gun registry which costs about 500 times its projected cost, doesn't stop crime, and still isn't fully implemented
Slashing medicare and foisting it on the Provinces, the same provinces run by the Conservative governments they now villify as part of their campaign (Mike Harris cut medical care, he's bad.  Doesn't matter that we stopped transfer payments to the provinces.  He couldn't pull money out of his ass, he's a Conservative, therefore, bad)
Canadian soldiers hitching rides to the war zones with the Americans because we have no lift capacity of our own
Canadian sailors in food banks
The CF having to storm and commandeer ships just to get its own equipment back
Helicopters, or lack thereof
The GST that they abolished because it was such a bad, Conservative idea.  (Remember bad, bad Mulroney?)
The Free Trade Agreement that they tore up because it was such a bad, Conservative idea (Remember bad, bad Mulroney?)


Is it any wonder that the BQ is waiting for another referendum, and Albertans are looking at the Alberta Separatist movement a little more closely these days?  Maybe loyal Canadians are sick of the elected aristocracy deciding what to do with OUR wealth, and worse, using our wealth to systematically destroy everything we love about our country.

The younger generation hasn't a clue, they're just in it for the bread and circuses.  A good number of the people who vote Liberal (okay, all of them) haven't a clue.  They keep voting for parties that will give them stuff, forgetting that it comes not from "the government" but from us, and ME.  Absolutely no thought behind it.  They vote Liberal cuz they always vote Liberal, or because the Liberals are going to spend money to help people.  No digging, no thoughts of where the money comes from...it's all a matter of who loves them more.

Liberalism is a philosphy of consolation for the West as it commits suicide.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Jul 2004)

Much of the talk around here and in the papers sounds remarkably like arguments made by secessionist advocates prior to the US Civil War (sans the slavery issue, although we have a multicultural issue of Quebec Separatism which is equally antagonistic).  Perhaps provincial and federal politicians should start to work together instead of pissing on their territory lest this Dominion have a meltdown.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Jul 2004)

Infanteer I am going to apologize now for something I just posted on another thread but I am right royally pi**ed off right now.

And NuLL for Brains comments are of no help at all.  Conservatives are supposed to be considerate of those left brained twits out there at the same time as gormless scunnering wee gits like him ramble off at the mouth about their perceptions of the attitudes of Conservatives.  B*gger them all.  

You get along fine in this flaming country as long as you get the groupthink mindgrope party flaming line.  And God help you indeed if you choose to think for yourself and come up with an alternate opinion.

I don't happen to agree with Randy White or even my new MP on family values.  I also don't happen to agree with Paul Martin or Jack Layton or even my Wife.

Regardless I respect their right to have a different opinion.  I would like to be shown the same consideration to myself and all others.

The problem in Iraq and Iran is not that the fundamentalists have an ideology it is that they impose the ideology.

The problem in Canada is not that some Conservative canadians have beliefs AND ARE WILLING TO LET A MAJORITY OF CANADIANS DECIDE IF THEY AGREE WITH THEM, it is that the LEFT wing accepts NO beliefs beyond their own and will impose them on society at large by WHATEVER MEANS POSSIBLE.

You tell me who is closer to the flaming Ayatollahs.
 :gunner:


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Jul 2004)

Just a reminder Infanteer, in case you had forgotten, Ralph Klein has already held senate elections. 

He currently has two Senators in Waiting that were elected by a popular vote of Albertans.  Both Jean Chretien and Paul Martin have already stiffed the people of Alberta by refusing to appoint them to the Senate.  Consequently Alberta is two Senators down and a third vacancy is looming if I remember correctly.

Next move is up to Bernard Lord.  He offered to hold elections for Senate if Harper got in.  What is stopping him from going ahead anyway?


----------



## rdschultz (1 Jul 2004)

Yeah, I was just going to say the same thing.  Also, in addition to Lord, I think I remember reading something about Charest considering it as well (or that might've just been speculation... hmm)


----------



## nULL (1 Jul 2004)

Problem with your little spiel is you got it all wrong. 

"...The problem in Canada is not that some Conservative canadians have beliefs AND ARE WILLING TO LET A MAJORITY OF CANADIANS DECIDE IF THEY AGREE WITH THEM..."

*you have just described a democracy* 

The left wing did not muster an army and take control of the country. They were elected. Which makes you the minority vote in a democracy, which means your opinion does not really matter. To the best of my knowledge there is no ideology out there where everybody wins. Somebody is a loser, and this election, that person was you. The original post of mine was meant to point out the fact that you lost the election, and that the majority of 60% of Canadians were not dragged to the voting booth and forced to vote Liberal. The Conservative message was out there, as was your opinion, it's just that nobody cared about it.  

I realize this sounds like a smart-ass post, not intended to me, merely argumentative.


----------



## Goober (1 Jul 2004)

nULL said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> The left wing did not muster an army and take control of the country. They were elected. Which makes you the minority vote in a democracy...



Most people on this board seem to be right of center, most seemed pissed off over the election, and claim that the general public are lemmings, twits, or whatever other derogatory word they think of to try and vent their anger.

Making such profound generalized accusations doesn't reflect well upon ones self. Consider the statement quoted above from nULL.


----------



## rdschultz (1 Jul 2004)

nULL said:
			
		

> Problem with your little spiel is you got it all wrong.
> 
> "...The problem in Canada is not that some Conservative canadians have beliefs AND ARE WILLING TO LET A MAJORITY OF CANADIANS DECIDE IF THEY AGREE WITH THEM..."
> 
> ...



Hmm, where to begin.

First, thats an awful way to look at a democracy.  "Only the Winner's opinion matters".  Obviously if that was the case, we may as well do away with the House of Commons, and just let Paul Martin decide everything on his own.

Also, I hate to burst your bubble, but the majority of 60% of Canadians that went to the polls didn't vote Liberal, as you so candidly suggest.  The majority of voters voted for something other than Liberal, which does say something.  Obviously you can take liberties with the defnition of majority (i.e. "The larger group"), but with our political system and the terms used in it, this is only a method of misrepresenting the facts.

Finally, if you look at the popular vote, and the representation, you'll note that "nobody" is a rather significant portion of Canada.  

P.S. Even though you add the "non-smart-ass" disclaimer, that doesn't make your post so.  The tone and nature of your post suggests that you wanted the liberals to win, and are quite happy to gloat about this.  Go ahead and do so, I don't care, but don't pretend you wrote something other than what you did.  An argumentative post has far more substance.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Jul 2004)

*Kirkhill,*


> Infanteer I am going to apologize now for something I just posted on another thread but I am right royally pi**ed off right now.


Don't apologize, you're allowed to be discontented, this is a democracy after all... ;D



> And NuLL for Brains comments are of no help at all.   Conservatives are supposed to be considerate of those left brained twits out there at the same time as gormless scunnering wee gits like him ramble off at the mouth about their perceptions of the attitudes of Conservatives.   B*gger them all.



It works both ways, I've heard enough banter against gay people from the Conservative camp (which I feel is completely inappropriate for a political doctrine) to know that consideration is the last thing to be found in that dirty game of politics.   It just looks like the left-wing crowd played the pipes a little better this time around.   Look at Conservative Diefenbaker's anti-American campaign when his minority was chucked out of Parliament, just as deceitful and ridiculous.



> You get along fine in this flaming country as long as you get the groupthink mindgrope party flaming line.   And God help you indeed if you choose to think for yourself and come up with an alternate opinion.
> 
> I don't happen to agree with Randy White or even my new MP on family values.   I also don't happen to agree with Paul Martin or Jack Layton or even my Wife.
> 
> Regardless I respect their right to have a different opinion.   I would like to be shown the same consideration to myself and all others.



I'm not following the logic of your rant here.   nULL was simply pointing out that Canadian's voted freely and fairly.



> The problem in Iraq and Iran is not that the fundamentalists have an ideology it is that they impose the ideology.
> 
> The problem in Canada is not that some Conservative canadians have beliefs AND ARE WILLING TO LET A MAJORITY OF CANADIANS DECIDE IF THEY AGREE WITH THEM, it is that the LEFT wing accepts NO beliefs beyond their own and will impose them on society at large by WHATEVER MEANS POSSIBLE.



There are radicals on both sides.   If all we have imposed on us is the penalty of paying more tax money to put in the pockets of others, than I think we are okay for now.   I don't think there is any conspiracy going on here.



> You tell me who is closer to the flaming Ayatollahs.



I'd say those outspoken Conservatives who want to use the not-with-standing-clause to push forward a Christian agenda (White), or compare abortion to the beheading of Nick Berg (Gallant).   I voted Conservative, but I came away with a bit of an ugly feeling of who also happened to be very vocally throwing their lot in with me.

To be honest, I'd be no more at ease voting for the New Democrats, who refused to rebuke a candidate that authored anti-semite garbage.   Or the Liberals, who have been caught doing every unethical thing in the book.   But please don't reduce Canada to Iran.

*Goober,*



> Most people on this board seem to be right of center, most seemed pissed off over the election,



Yes, you're safe in assuming that.



> and claim that the general public are lemmings, twits, or whatever other derogatory word they think of to try and vent their anger.



I stand behind my statement that the general population is quite ignorant on most matters of the state.   You can look at the peacekeeping myth that surrounds the Canadian Military (and I defy you to prove that myth).   This extends into most other areas of the government; one only has to look at the figures to figure it out.   Look at the common myths of health care, foreign policy, social spending, cronyism, and taxation.   What pisses me off is the politicians failure to address these areas with serious debate during this election (The Greens did it, Harper did it to some extent, until he was booed off the stage was scare tactics).   What pisses me off even more is that citzens of Canada are too lazy or too stupid to bother looking into these things to any extent to ensure that their votes counted.

This vote was the lowest turnout ever.   Either people were too lazy to exercise their sovereign estate, which means they are typical spoiled Canadians, or that they disdain politics to the degree of apathy, which I think is quite unhealthy.   Obviously, whoever is left to vote in Canada for the most part is content to give the country over to socialist bureaucrats administering a handout monster and union bosses who seek to subjugate the economy.   Don't come complaining to me when the trough dries up and you're in the hand-out lineup.

*Hoser,*



> Hmm, where to begin.
> 
> First, thats an awful way to look at a democracy.   "Only the Winner's opinion matters".   Obviously if that was the case, we may as well do away with the House of Commons, and just let Paul Martin decide everything on his own.



I'm sure you wouldn't be saying that if the Conservatives one.   Remember the golden principle of majority rules?   That was central to the idea of peace, order, and good government; the winners of Majority governments are able to effectively move forward with their Mandate.   Obviously, this isn't the case, since a minority government is in place; the opinions of others will matter.



> Also, I hate to burst your bubble, but the majority of 60% of Canadians that went to the polls didn't vote Liberal, as you so candidly suggest.   The majority of voters voted for something other than Liberal, which does say something.   Obviously you can take liberties with the defnition of majority (i.e. "The larger group"), but with our political system and the terms used in it, this is only a method of misrepresenting the facts.



You're right, but 55% voted for what I feel was a left-of-center government, while another 13% voted for a separatist party run by a former Communist party member.   It looks like the majority has spoken to which way they want things to go.

I refuse to be angry at Canada's democracy for not electing a Conservative Government.   They only had 30% of the popular vote.   I may be displeased with an ignorant electorate that votes emotionally rather than rationally (Jean Chretien said that), and I may be disgusted with tactics that have no place in public discourse (from ALL sides).   However, this is the nature of the beast.   The system allows for things like this, so they happen.   I willingly accept that most Canadians are willing to throw their fate to socialist ideologues, fear mongering demagogues, and separatist traitors, all for the sake of denying the floor to social regressives.   Unfortunately, we who want to honestly do something right (from ALL parties) are caught in the middle of it.



> Finally, if you look at the popular vote, and the representation, you'll note that "nobody" is a rather significant portion of Canada.



That's the way the system works.   We must be doing something right to have almost 140 years of a continuous peaceful, liberal democratic government.   I think the system could be fixed as well, but it's far from shot.



> P.S. Even though you add the "non-smart-ass" disclaimer, that doesn't make your post so.   The tone and nature of your post suggests that you wanted the liberals to win, and are quite happy to gloat about this.   Go ahead and do so, I don't care, but don't pretend you wrote something other than what you did.   An argumentative post has far more substance



Am I a smart-ass too?


All in all, I think we are overreacting here.   It is a minority government.   We won't be foisted into communes or forced to take part in a gay pride parade tomorrow.   As well, we won't be forced to attend Church.   Canada's democracy, although not as healthy as it could and should be, is still there.   Almost two years ago, I had to spend the day checking on polling stations and party headquarters to make sure Bosnians didn't kill each other over their first National Election.   I'm glad I don't have to do that here.

The demagoguery that persists in todays democracy is the price we pay.   It was prevalent in Athens where crowds could be incited to imprison their leaders.   Canadian politics has had low and high turnouts, good and bad governments, and good and bad policies.   I guarantee you these same arguments were being chucked around when Tommy Douglas come to Ottawa, yet the standard of living is much higher than it was then.   As long as their isn't catastrophe (I haven't seen one in our history yet) I'm sure we'll be around to argue about these same things in the next election.

Anyways, I am going to bed...without having to worry about someone who hates me shelling my neighbourhood.


----------



## Goober (1 Jul 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ....
> I stand behind my statement that the general population is quite ignorant on most matters of the state.   ...



If by that statement you mean most people are ignorant on most matters of the state, then I agree with you fully. I think there should be more focus on education in Canadian politics starting at the junior high level. This would get more people interested as they will be exposed to it at a ripe age.



> This vote was the lowest turnout ever.   Either people were too lazy to exercise their sovereign estate, which means they are typical spoiled Canadians, or that they disdain politics to the degree of apathy, which I think is quite unhealthy.



I think most people who didn't vote would fall under the latter, and I agree, its quite unhealthy. I would add that some people are just too lazy or don't care enough to educate themselves enough to make an informed decision.

[edit] That last sentence is completly redundant (its late.. tired) , its pretty much what you just said in the section I quoted you on. But I'll just leave it in anyway.


----------



## rdschultz (1 Jul 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'm sure you wouldn't be saying that if the Conservatives one.  Remember the golden principle of majority rules?  That was central to the idea of peace, order, and good government; the winners of Majority governments are able to effectively move forward with their Mandate.



True enough, majority rules, but the idea that the losers opinions don't count is not a central idea in majority rules.  Majority rules, but everybody gets a say (now if only there more accountability).  

And I would be saying that if the Conservatives won, and someone said the same thing.  I won't pretend I don't lean a little to the right, but I try not to discriminate when I take offence to things.  My true political beliefs are somewhere along the lines of Libertarian, if anything.  



> Obviously, this isn't the case, since a minority government is in place; the opinions of others will matter.



Partly my point.  He said they don't matter, when quite obviously you agree they do.  Had it been a majority government, I wouldn't be so adamant about my point, as the opinions of others matter much less in that situation, but they still allow open debate, and I think that is important (if only more attention was paid to some of the debate, and only if it mattered).



> You're right, but 55% voted for what I feel was a left-of-center government, while another 13% voted for a separatist party run by a former Communist party member.  It looks like the majority has spoken to which way they want things to go.



True enough, but I wasn't speaking about which direction they want things to go, and either was null.  He stated simply that the majority of Canadians who voted, voted for the Liberal party, which isn't the case.  Unless of course you're using a different definition of majority than the rest of the political community, and I don't think thats fair. 



> I refuse to be angry at Canada's democracy for not electing a Conservative Government.  They only had 30% of the popular vote.  I may be displeased with an ignorant electorate that votes emotionally rather than rationally (Jean Chretien said that), and I may be disgusted with tactics that have no place in public discourse (from ALL sides).  However, this is the nature of the beast.  The system allows for things like this, so they happen.  I willingly accept that most Canadians are willing to throw their fate to socialist ideologues, fear mongering demagogues, and separatist traitors, all for the sake of denying the floor to social regressives.  Unfortunately, we who want to honestly do something right (from ALL parties) are caught in the middle of it.



I couldn't agree more.  I'm not angry in the least, I never expected a Conservative win.  I'm quite pleased at the result, because I think it will make for some interesting politics, and restores a little bit of accountability (wishful thinking, perhaps).  At the very least, it makes the government work a little harder to do/keep their job, and I don't think that hurts anybody.

For my purposes, I think the most important change in Canada's government occured last December when Chretien stepped down.  I think Chretien did a terrible job of running the country, and I think he was an embarassment to our country.  

For the record, I don't imagine I could ever vote for an NDP candidate, but I would consider both Liberal and Conservative candidates in any election, depending on the circumstances.  My Libertarian beliefs usually wind up putting slightly right of centre, but most definetly moderate on a number of issues.   I think economic considerations are what push me over to the right.



> That's the way the system works.  We must be doing something right to have almost 140 years of continuous peace, liberal democratic government.  I think the system could be fixed as well, but it's far from shot.



Yes.  This election, more than anything, has proven to me that democracy is alive and well in our country.   I just wish more people would partake in the democracy.



> Am I a smart-*** too?



Yes.  But I like smart-asses.  You're probably one of the more interesting posters on this forum, and I find myself agreeing with you on nearly every count.   (Please note: I'm not trying to kiss your ass here, its the truth.)

I just don't like it when people claim a post is argumentative when it appears to be anything but.  Perhaps I misread null's intent, but I don't think he came off as being very argumentative. 

And yes, I believe I was overreacting.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (1 Jul 2004)

Time for a bit of perspective.

Harper actually just started with his new party.  They had no time to sit down and hammer out party policy, they had no time to brief all of the candidates, they didn't have time to set up regional and national councils.  

Harper had asked Martin for some time, and , of course, Martin refused.  Why allow the enemy to get stronger?

Harper performed a near miracle, winning 99 seats with all of that going against him.  If he had another four or five months, he would have got more.

By the way, Martin was not the most frugal finance minister.  Government spending did not go down any year that Martin was Finance.  Taxes went up, which is how he balanced the books.  Especially the non-tax of EI overpayments!

Harper now has time to get organised.  Come next electio, watch out!


----------



## Military Brat (1 Jul 2004)

There seems to be a growing trend among Canadians to tow the partisan line, we are kind of turning into a carbon copy of the US in that sense, where people blindly vote Liberal or Conservative or NDP or whichever party they might vote for because their parents did it and their grandparents did it. 

There were a lot of people who I bet also voted Liberal to "cancel" a Conservative vote. The most absurb thing I've heard yet, "strategic voting". Vote for the darn party you want elected or you'll never get it! Overall, I think most people who voted Liberal stuck with the Liberals because they didn't like the alernatives(NDP and Conservatives, realistically) not because they particularly like the Liberals or their policies. The Liberals portray themselves as socially progressive, while also in support of military spending increases(or at least around election time they are), so they play to all audiences while the NDP is seen as the party in favor of social spending but not as much in favor of military spending. And the Conservatives are seen as far right wing by most, a party that wants to increase military spending but then they also seem to think the Conservatives are anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, that they would have thousands of troops in Iraq(those troops we DON'T have to send to Iraq, due to Liberal spending cuts..hmmm..) and supporting a 2-tier system. 

Paying down debt..it's good, but at what cost? Not at the cost of our military, our health care, our education system and every other government department. I find it rather silly that in this time of government cuts there is somewhere available funds for a nice plump salary raise for members of parliament. They make something ridiculous like 135,000 a year, half the time, probably more than that, they aren't even in Ottawa because the House of Commons isn't even in session. 

The Liberals smeared Mr.Harper's image from the beginning of the campaign, and I think that really got to the minds of voters. But Harper also disappeared in the last week of the campaign. I didn't see any media scrums in the week before election day, he was hardly even in the news. Layton and Martin were very agressive in attacking their opponents right up to the day of the election and I think that is what stuck with voters, Layton and Martin on the campaign trail while Harper seemed to be nowhere in sight.

But anyhow, I don't think Harper will ever become Prime Minister, too many people see the formation of his party as a PC takeover attempt. A new leader and I think their chances of winning a majority would improve greatly, but that is just my opinion, obviously I'm not an expert.


----------



## nULL (1 Jul 2004)

I voted Conservative to cancel a Liberal vote. So? Strategic voting makes sense. Vote for the party most likely to actually get in power and represent at least _some_ of your interests. While what you said does make sense ("vote for the party you want or you'll never get it!") only one party is actually going to get in and make decisons that affect _you._

Also paying debt is incredibly important, especially to the armed forces. Hypothetically years from now, the Liberals badly need cash to pay off a ballooning national debt...which government department could they obliterate completely while not affecting the majority of the people who vote for them.....

For the record, "Paying down debt..it's good, but at what cost?" is probably the greatest quote ever  The cost is money today, or everything tomorrow. Like credit card debt, one must always be vigilant.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Jul 2004)

How much better things look after a good night's sleep.

Good posts Infanteer and Hoser.  

It is all about democracy and majority rule, but it is also about respect for the minority opinion.

For me it is also about there being no absolutes.  Circumstances today can put me on a different side of the argument than I was yesterday.  This is the reason I don't like the rigidity of the Charter enforced by the Supreme Court.  Why for me Parliament must always be supreme.  Pragmatism over Absolutism - and for me the Charter represents an Absolutist approach.  That is ultimately the reason I voted Conservative.

I am a Scots Protestant that married a French Catholic.  I believe in a strong military and am willing to tolerate some private health care. She believes in public health care and doesn't support paying down the debt.  We both believe in the traditional definition of marriage.  She is vehemently opposed to abortion and the death penalty (except when talking about child rapists and mass murderers - then she has second thoughts).  I stay out of the abortion debate but believe in the death penalty. She is a centralist. I am a provincialist.  At the end of the day we were both reduced to putting one cross on a sheet of paper.  At the end of the day we both continue to live with each other. At some point in the future, not exceeding five years, we will do it all again.  By that time my views and her views will likely have changed.

Strangely enough this time we both voted conservative.  The least of three evils.

Lance, Military Brat and Hoser thanks for injecting some optimism.

To the rest of the board, I will try to refrain from making disparaging comments about EASTERNERS and Torontonians ( a group that includes friends and relatives) if the rest of the board will refrain from characterizing conservatism as a disease that emanates from the West in general and Alberta in particular.  This is a ploy that Liberal strategists have been using since Diefenbakers days.  This is what has alienated the west.

There are Conservatives all across Canada, just as Liberals and Socialists exist everywhere.  And their views overlap.


----------



## karpovage (2 Jul 2004)

Military Brat,

You said:
"There seems to be a growing trend among Canadians to tow the partisan line, we are kind of turning into a carbon copy of the US in that sense, where people blindly vote Liberal or Conservative or NDP or whichever party they might vote for because their parents did it and their grandparents did it."

Please do not make generalized statements like this. This is very untrue. I personally have voted Democratic, Republican, Reform Party (Ross Perot) and back Republican again. Lots of U.S. citizens do the same. They are the ones called "Undecided" and who typically sway the election. My parents and grandparents have done the same - we vote on issues, not blind faith  in one party. Basically, I have to weigh the issues I'm interested in, see whose offerring the closest to my personal beliefs and vote with that candidate. Then I cross my fingers that the bloody politician will keep his/her word! (Remember "Read My Lips, No New Taxes" - Bush, the elder, 1988)

What's interesting in this forum debate is how much the U.S. and Canadians have the same problems/issues/complaints. It's rather comical and mentally exhausting too because we are going through the same crap down here. 

NOTFONDA KERRY!


----------



## Infanteer (2 Jul 2004)

I think it is great for a citizen to not support any particular party.  I refuse to join any myself; sticking to non-partisan organizations like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Hell, If I could have voted in 1993, I would have voted Liberal as well, considering the Mulroney's mandate was about as effecient as Chretien's.  However, I would have been pissed off for doing it, seeing how the Libs backed out on most of their platform.


----------



## rdschultz (2 Jul 2004)

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is a great organization, from my limited exposure to them.

I originally happened upon their site while looking up tax rates comparisons for each province.  Now I check it every month or so.  I have complete intentions of joining once I become a taxpayer again (well, I have been a taxpayer, just severely under-employed, so when I get some cash in my pockets).


----------



## Scott (5 Jul 2004)

In the round table galley discussion we had where I work, we decided, on election day, that a PM has to come from The Prairies (Manitoba west to the BC border), the Territories or the Atlantic Provinces. No offense to those not included.

What a shock I was in for when I got home to see how bad it went back home (East)

Ah well, better to have to survive through another Liberal term and have the right to speak out against it than not, eh? 

Cheers!


----------

