NationStates Jolt Archive

And by Liberals, I mean members of the Federal Liberal Party of Canada, which will soon be swept aside in an imminent summer election (which has not been called, but I can see the future).
I think Harper will win aeither a solid minority or a tenuous majority, and both the Bloc and the NDP will improve their standings.
Also, if Josee Vernier comes through, the Tories might even get a seat in Quebec.
I think this is a good thing, as it means John Manley and a re-energized Liberal party can return to power in four years or so, and Canada will have shied away a little from its present lefty course, and into a happier centrist one.

Yegads...the fact that our only real options are a bunch of conservatives in 'liberal' clothing, and a bunch of conservatives in 'conservative' clothing scares me. I hate our friggin' elections. We don't vote in candidates, we vote in parties who have to toe the party line uber alles. No choice, really. Damn both parties, but at least the libs support gay marriage and aren't sucking up to Bush. (too much)

I'm a bit of a Red Tory (or maybe a Blue Liberal?) but I don't think Harper's amlgamated clan of Religious Western Hillbillies and McKay-esque weasels actually discriminate against gays. They adopt the "civil union" approach, which seems to me to be a reasonable compromise- give gays all the economic and civil benefits of marriage, but leave the official definition of marriage the way it always has been- guy and girl.
My own plan is remove marriage entirely from government, and make civil union the only thing the govt. has authority over. This will leave marriage exclusively in the religious domain.
Also, a certain amount of sucking up to the Americans is neccessary (even Trudeau acknowledged as much)

You're funny. You're a funny guy. Tories? In power?

LMAO

I wish I was a bettor...

Yegads...the fact that our only real options are a bunch of conservatives in 'liberal' clothing, and a bunch of conservatives in 'conservative' clothing scares me. I hate our friggin' elections. We don't vote in candidates, we vote in parties who have to toe the party line uber alles. No choice, really. Damn both parties, but at least the libs support gay marriage and aren't sucking up to Bush. (too much)


That's why I voted Commie.
Throwing my vote away in the name of "Canadian politics suck."

You're funny. You're a funny guy. Tories? In power?

LMAO

I wish I was a bettor...

Check out the Ekos poll reported in the Toronto Star yesterday.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1113176765800

Besides, it happens occasionally. :p

You're funny. You're a funny guy. Tories? In power?

LMAO

I wish I was a bettor...

lol yeh, our Tories in the UK suck as well =)

That's why I voted Commie.
Throwing my vote away in the name of "Canadian politics suck."

Maybe so, but they're better than American and Zimbabwean politics. Besides, without participation, you don't get improvement.

Maybe so, but they're better than American and Zimbabwean politics. Besides, without participation, you don't get improvement.

You're preaching to the guy who prefers Totalitarianism.
We don't need participation, just Me running the country.

You're preaching to the guy who prefers Totalitarianism.
We don't need participation, just Me running the country.

The funny thing about totalitarianism is that the best dictators in history were part of the political process before they obliterated it and took up ruling themselves. Good luck with the voting-Commie thing leading to Canadian domination, though. If it works out for you, you probably deserve to be an absolute dictator.

I would tend to think that the minority gov't is the best we can do federally at this point in time. Either that or NDP majority, but thats more or less a pipedream. Conservative or Bloc majority would simply be frightening, Steven harper among everything else Wants gov't involvement similar to the shrub down south.

NDP majority? Try watching them argue on CPAC sometime- especially Libby Davies. I'd hate to see the kind of tax-and-spend place Canada would be with those nuts in charge.
Besides, Layton's handling of the Unity question and the Clarity act show exactly how unqualified he is to be PM. Still, this next election will give them a chance to expand their base of MP's, and mature as a party. Then they might be prepared for government.
As for Harper, he's a politician, and he knows that a so-con will never stay in power. Expect him to be moderate if he becomes PM.

It is truly unfortunate, but the conservatives will probably win a minority government.

and Canada will have shied away a little from its present lefty course, and into a happier centrist one.

The liberals are not very leftist. Besides a softened stance on marijuana, gay marriage is the only real leftist stance it has taken in quite awhile. It's also unfortunate that that stance will aid in kicking the liberals out of office.

I'm a bit of a Red Tory (or maybe a Blue Liberal?) but I don't think Harper's amlgamated clan of Religious Western Hillbillies and McKay-esque weasels actually discriminate against gays. They adopt the "civil union" approach, which seems to me to be a reasonable compromise- give gays all the economic and civil benefits of marriage, but leave the official definition of marriage the way it always has been- guy and girl.
My own plan is remove marriage entirely from government, and make civil union the only thing the govt. has authority over. This will leave marriage exclusively in the religious domain.

Not to turn this into a debate over gay marriage, but that reasoning looks past churches that do support gay marriage(although there certainly are not many). The United Church of Canada is such an example. My point is that marriage cannot be interpreted purely on what a church says, because there are many churches with different outlooks on controversial topics. We as a country cannot decide that one religion decides what the view of all religion... this is not America. Gay marriage will not hurt Catholics, protestants or Muslims. Acknowledging it breaks down stigmatism, and rises homosexuals to an equal level socially. The liberals government(surprisingly) is trying to break down the current inequality.

The conservatives will bring with them exclusion, and functionalist ideology. It will bring Canada 2 steps closer to the current state of the US, which so many Canadians have spoken out against. Canada is too rich with the socially minded to be represented by a party, which has alienated various areas of Canada by its predudices, in the past.

The liberals are not very leftist. Besides a softened stance on marijuana, gay marriage is the only real leftist stance it has taken in quite awhile. It's also unfortunate that that stance will aid in kicking the liberals out of office.

Not to turn this into a debate over gay marriage, but that reasoning looks past churches that do support gay marriage(although there certainly are not many). The United Church of Canada is such an example. My point is that marriage cannot be interpreted purely on what a church says, because there are many churches with different outlooks on controversial topics. We as a country cannot decide that one religion decides what the view of all religion... this is not America. Gay marriage will not hurt Catholics, protestants or Muslims. Acknowledging it breaks down stigmatism, and rises homosexuals to an equal level socially. The liberals government(surprisingly) is trying to break down the current inequality.


I think Kyoto, national daycare and the gun registry are all pretty leftist (note: I support Kyoto and national daycare)

As for gay marriage, I think that the individual church should define it, and leave the govt. right out specificallyso that churches like the United can perform gay marriage and churches like the Catholic don't have to. I think that is the fairest view for each side- since the Provinces decide about administration of marriages, the federal govt. assurance that they won't be forced to perform them is meaningless (thus, it is possible that a gay couple could win a court battle to force their church to perform gay marraige)