NationStates Jolt Archive

It's a very simple question of when.

After all, we know that Prime Minister Martin promised to have spring time elections following the final report from the Gomery Inquiry.

Meanwhile, the other parties are deciding that they don't like this and that they'd like it sooner.

So, what do you Canadian voters think?

Christmas time may mean different things to people, time for the family, the birth of Jesus, getting drunk at parties. But there is one thing that doesn't belong on that list: elections, specially when we'll probably end up with the same goverment, give or take a few seats.

Wait until the massive hangovers are over, then have elections.

Did you know that the last Christmas election was during the First World War in 1917? And the last January election was back in the 19th century?

Now that you have that useless fact; let's find out who believes we need an election sooner or later?

Anything else to add?

As a Canadian citizen and an active member of the Liberal Party of Canada. I place my blame on the shoulders of the opposition if we have to go to the booths to vote during the Winter Holidays. They are the source of the cause, please look and see that there are important things right now under debate in Parliament. If the opposition calls for a vote of no-confidence in Parliament next week Tuesday, these will get cancelled out and our Members of Parliament will not be doing their elected job.

Vote Liberal.

No thanks, I'll be voting NDP with a clear conscience. Martin had his chance to do right by the opposition party that was holding the Libs in power, and he's decided he'd rather face the electorate for a new mandate - preferably as a Lib majority.

Don't give it to him, Canada. Send Mr. Martin back to face the realities of a minority government. Vote how your heart moves you.

That's why Jack is my man.

Parliament has grown cynical and lackadaisical. We need an election to clear the air and to get a new mandate with energy.

I am no angry conservative who has been saying this for over a year for partisan reasons but have just recently gotten sick of the current state of politics.

Jack Layton will not be voted by the general population of Canadians to run our country. Your third sentence in your second paragraph does not correspond together, Dobbsworld. First you are calling upon the peoples of Canada not to vote for the Prime Minister.

Jack Layton will not be voted by the general population of Canadians to run our country. Your third sentence in your second paragraph does not correspond together, Dobbsworld. First you are calling upon the peoples of Canada not to vote for the Prime Minister.
No, you're right, Jack won't become PM. But neither will those lying hounds, Steve Harper and Peter McKay. Face it - Paul Martin will be the next PM - but I'm personally hoping it'll be an even slimmer minority gov.

With a strengthened NDP clearly steering policy.

When I implore people to 'vote with their hearts', I suppose I should clarify my meaning - LEFT-LEANING PEOPLE OF CANADA: STOP VOTING 'STRATEGICALLY' FOR THE LIBERAL PARTY IN ORDER TO FRUSTRATE THE LAVA-TORIES. VOTE HOW YOU'VE WANTED TO FOR THE LAST TWELVE YEARS, BUT HAVE INSTEAD ALLOWED YOURSELVES TO BE COWED INTO VOTING LIBERAL.

VOTE NDP AGAIN, FINALLY.

You did not sway my vote, it's still going to the Liberals.

You did not sway my vote, it's still going to the Liberals.
I'm not here to make up your mind for you. See you at the polls-!

What should I do for Layton? What is the NDP's track record? They have screwed up the economies of provinces across the country. They'll do the same thing federally, a reason why Canadians should not vote for them.

What is the NDP's track record? They have screwed up the economies of provinces across the country. They'll do the same thing federally, a reason why Canadians should not vote for them.
No, that's not a valid argument. That is supposition. And anyway, we just got through agreeing Jack will not be seated as the next PM after the forthcoming elections.

So what is your problem, or are you just looking to badmouth the Federal NDP?

No, that's not a valid argument. That is supposition. And anyway, we just got through agreeing Jack will not be seated as the next PM after the forthcoming elections.

So what is your problem, or are you just looking to badmouth the Federal NDP?

My supposition is that regardless of who gets elected in Canada, it won't matter to the US.

My supposition is that regardless of who gets elected in Canada, it won't matter to the US.
The feeling is mutual, trust me.:rolleyes:

No matter when the election is held, either the campaign or the election date will affect some holiday or another. In February, it's Chinese New Year. In March, it's Lent. In April, it's Easter. And so on.

From a holiday perspective, it doesn't matter when the election is called. Campaigns have occured over Christmas before - the Liberals brought Joe Clark's government down over Christmas.

If the opposition parties have lost confidence in the government, they have the right to bring it down. Then we'll all find out whether Canada agrees with them or not.

Frankly, either a winter or spring date would be fine for me. I accepted Martin's request for letting Gomery finish before he called an election when he made his plea. I can still live with that. But I can live with the opposition parties doing their jobs as well, if they have lost confidence in the government.

Paul Martin has promised an election in the spring AFTER the full release of the Gomery Report. Frankly, even his promise to do that runs counter to parliamentary practices.

His party has the most seats, ergo he IS the elected leader of our country. That is his mandate. It is not his place to abandon that mandate unless told that it has been revoked. In our system this is done by means of one of tow things: In the case of a majority government, at the next electoral cycle. In the case of a minority government, by a vote of non-confidence.


Frankly, if PAul were to bend to the pressure and abandon his post I would lose respect for him.

Now if the NDP and Conservatives are convinced that the Liberals are not serving the will of the people and that the people want his government recalled, then they should put forward the vote of non confidence and revoke the mandate.

The NDP and Conservatives, however, are trying to have Paul step down without taking that step. Why? One simple reason:

They aren't convinced that this is what the voters want. If they were they would pull the trigger in a heartbeat.


And that, to me, says it all.


If the NDP and Conservatives don't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and be counted for what they believe the voters want against a weak minority giovernment, then anyone who votes for them expecting them to stand up for the country as a whole against the rest of the world is completely delusional.

I personally believe that the New Democrat's place does not belong in the Prime Minister's Office, they are a good party in the opposition.

As a Canadian citizen and an active member of the Liberal Party of Canada. I place my blame on the shoulders of the opposition if we have to go to the booths to vote during the Winter Holidays. They are the source of the cause, please look and see that there are important things right now under debate in Parliament. If the opposition calls for a vote of no-confidence in Parliament next week Tuesday, these will get cancelled out and our Members of Parliament will not be doing their elected job.

Vote Liberal.
This is typical Liberal rhetoric that we've come to hear so much of during the Liberal reign. Let's call the election now!!!!!!!!!! Let's get these corrupt Liberals and their corrupt cronies and their wishy washy, flip flopping, leader out of power and bring in a majority Conservative party. Let's start the new year off with a fresh start.

I've always voted NDP. Fuck voting 'strategically'. That sort of thinking eventually creates a bipolar system: either you vote for the ones most likely to win, oryou vote for the one most likely to defeat the one most likely to win. Great, now you have two parties, just like down south, and we can all see how that works so well...:rolleyes:

I happened to like a minority government. The Liberals couldn't run canada without building coalitions, which is great. If the Conservatives hadn't wasted their time grandstanding, they might have been able to influence the agenda, like the NDP did.

So I'm hoping that the liberals and the quebecois have the same amount of seats, the Conservatives have one seat less, and the NDP have one more.

I personally believe that the New Democrat's place does not belong in the Prime Minister's Office, they are a good party in the opposition.
You're persisting. Makes me think you're trembling inside.

Oooooooh, Scary Jack and his Big Orange Machine. Look out, westerners, he'll turn you into rissoles and feed you to evil Olivia Chow after election day.

(You're being very, very silly IMO)

What should I do for Layton? What is the NDP's track record? They have screwed up the economies of provinces across the country. They'll do the same thing federally, a reason why Canadians should not vote for them.
Bob Rae did a great job in Ontario. He just had the misfortune of being elected during a recession and hence all blame was placed on his shoulders. People (i.e. - OPSEU) didn't like Rae Days (i.e. - days w/o pay) so they voted in Mike Harris and got 365 day w/o pay. Hard lesson to learn!!!!!!!!

You're persisting. Makes me think you're trembling inside.

Oooooooh, Scary Jack and his Big Orange Machine. Look out, westerners, he'll turn you into rissoles and feed you to evil Olivia Chow after election day.

(You're being very, very silly IMO)
Da mihi sis bubulae frustrum assae, solana tuberosa in modo Gallico fricta, ac quassum lactatum coagulatum crassum.

This is typical Liberal rhetoric that we've come to hear so much of during the Liberal reign. Let's call the election now!!!!!!!!!! Let's get these corrupt Liberals and their corrupt cronies and their wishy washy, flip flopping, leader out of power and bring in a majority Conservative party. Let's start the new year off with a fresh start.


The only thing going on that's wishy-washy is the fact that the majority of MPs are too much the chickenshits to pull the trigger and chuck out a minority government that they keep whining is the epitome of evil and corruption.

And the longer they drag this on - playing the victim when they have the power - just makes them look more and more like people without the required strength of vertebrae to run a children's lemonade stand let alone my country.

Parliament has grown cynical and lackadaisical. We need an election to clear the air and to get a new mandate with energy.

I am no angry conservative who has been saying this for over a year for partisan reasons but have just recently gotten sick of the current state of politics.
Lackadaisical. Cool word. I agree with this sentiment. And going to the polls at Christmas time is no less convenient than going at any other time.

What should I do for Layton? What is the NDP's track record? They have screwed up the economies of provinces across the country. They'll do the same thing federally, a reason why Canadians should not vote for them.

Actually, if you look at the numbers, that's not true. Can we agree that a government that has balanced the books has (probably) not screwed up the economy? If so, then:

NDP governments have balanced the books 46% of the time.
Liberal governments have balanced the books 21% of the time.
Conservative governments have balanced the books 35% of the time.

Go crunch the numbers for yourself:

http://www.fin.gc.ca/toce/2005/frt_e.html

My supposition is that regardless of who gets elected in Canada, it won't matter to the US.
The US doesn't care about anything. As notorius breakers of international law why should they. In 1986 the UN Security Council tried to pass a motion to force states to abide by int'l law the US vetoed it. The US has broken Int'l law on many occasions icluding 1986 in Nicaragua; 1989 in Panama and most recently in the softwood lumber debate with Canada where they refused, TWICE, to accept an international tribunal's decision which is in favour of Canada. This sounds like a different topic I better start a separate string for it. See you there!!!

Da mihi sis bubulae frustrum assae, solana tuberosa in modo Gallico fricta, ac quassum lactatum coagulatum crassum.
Which I translate as reading something not unlike,

"Da me if you wish oxen in vain , help potatos upon now Hen fricta , and a shaking enticement coagulating tomorrow."

I'm not up on Latin. Do me the favor and tell me what's really on your mind.

The US doesn't care about anything. As notorius breakers of international law why should they. In 1986 the UN Security Council tried to pass a motion to force states to abide by int'l law the US vetoed it. The US has broken Int'l law on many occasions icluding 1986 in Nicaragua; 1989 in Panama and most recently in the softwood lumber debate with Canada where they refused, TWICE, to accept an international tribunal's decision which is in favour of Canada. This sounds like a different topic I better start a separate string for it. See you there!!!

Good idea. If we swing this topic to talking about the US, we'll never get back to talking about the election.

Stephen Harper will bring Canada to the ground with the large increases of spending on National Defence, Health care and other locations that he has promised. He also promises to cut taxes that will bring our country's economy into the ground. The Conservatives are an unwise choice. The corrupt cronies after the report have been reported to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and have been banned from the Liberal Party of Canada.

The Liberal Party of Canada has also been paying the people of Canada in return of the money that we had stole from them to campaign in Quebec. Let's not vote the Conservatives into power under the Harper-MacKay leadership, let's stick with the Liberal Party, since they are clearly the Canadian Party.

When the New Democrats backed the Liberals for a few months, that wasn't a coaliation -if it were a coaliation members of the New Democrats would of been appointed to various locations in government to complete the works. Instead, the NDP supported the Liberals - that is the only thing. Not only that, the Conservatives tried to feel up the Liberals decreasing money to the Kyoto Accords.

And no, I am not trembling - I'm not an idiot.

Which I translate as reading something not unlike,

"Da me if you wish oxen in vain , help potatos upon now Hen fricta , and a shaking enticement coagulating tomorrow."

I'm not up on Latin. Do me the favor and tell me what's really on your mind.

I'd like cheeseburger with fries and a large shake.

I'd like cheeseburger with fries and a large shake.
Heh. Should've guessed.

Heh. Should've guessed.
That's all I can say, since I'm not entitled to vote in Canadian elections. I wish more Canadians had the same attitude about US elections.

No matter when the election is held, either the campaign or the election date will affect some holiday or another. In February, it's Chinese New Year. In March, it's Lent. In April, it's Easter. And so on.

From a holiday perspective, it doesn't matter when the election is called. Campaigns have occured over Christmas before - the Liberals brought Joe Clark's government down over Christmas.

If the opposition parties have lost confidence in the government, they have the right to bring it down. Then we'll all find out whether Canada agrees with them or not.

Frankly, either a winter or spring date would be fine for me. I accepted Martin's request for letting Gomery finish before he called an election when he made his plea. I can still live with that. But I can live with the opposition parties doing their jobs as well, if they have lost confidence in the government.
I like your thinking!!!! :)

Fcuk USA, I want to move to Canada and vote new democrat. And so i cast my respective vote in joltforum.Alright, no one cares.

i heard you had a real trotskyist party that has a small margin of the vote. how is that going?

Paul Martin has promised an election in the spring AFTER the full release of the Gomery Report. Frankly, even his promise to do that runs counter to parliamentary practices.

His party has the most seats, ergo he IS the elected leader of our country. That is his mandate. It is not his place to abandon that mandate unless told that it has been revoked. In our system this is done by means of one of tow things: In the case of a majority government, at the next electoral cycle. In the case of a minority government, by a vote of non-confidence.


Frankly, if PAul were to bend to the pressure and abandon his post I would lose respect for him.

Now if the NDP and Conservatives are convinced that the Liberals are not serving the will of the people and that the people want his government recalled, then they should put forward the vote of non confidence and revoke the mandate.

The NDP and Conservatives, however, are trying to have Paul step down without taking that step. Why? One simple reason:

They aren't convinced that this is what the voters want. If they were they would pull the trigger in a heartbeat.


And that, to me, says it all.


If the NDP and Conservatives don't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and be counted for what they believe the voters want against a weak minority giovernment, then anyone who votes for them expecting them to stand up for the country as a whole against the rest of the world is completely delusional.
A PM can call an election any time he wants.

i heard you had a real trotskyist party that has a small margin of the vote. how is that going?
marginally, as usual. actually there's three or four communist parties, and I know the leader of one of them personally. Nice guy, a tad bit boring at parties, but you know.

A PM can call an election any time he wants.
Pretty much, yup.

The only thing going on that's wishy-washy is the fact that the majority of MPs are too much the chickenshits to pull the trigger and chuck out a minority government that they keep whining is the epitome of evil and corruption.

And the longer they drag this on - playing the victim when they have the power - just makes them look more and more like people without the required strength of vertebrae to run a children's lemonade stand let alone my country.
Well the Conservatives have tried a non-confidence vote twice already. It's the NDPers who keep changing their minds. Jack Layton is wishy washy one here, especially with this new motion he's bringing in suggesting an election be called. Now that's pretty stupid!!!!!! I've been an NDP supporter for a long time but Jack's not the guy for me. Neither is Steven Harper but the Conservatives are the only party around that have the chance of getting rid of these Liberals. From Liars to Bald Faced FIBERALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A PM can call an election any time he wants.

Yes. But as a point of procedure they generally don't unless there is a compelling reason to disrupt the normal electoral process.

Paul Martin has already agreed that the Gomery Inquiry is one such thing and so has agreed to call an election immediately upon the release of the full findings. Other than that there is nothing in the works legislatively speaking to warrant an early recall.

And, once again, if the NDP and Conservatives were SURE that the current Liberal government had lost the faith of the people, then we would already be in an election cycle.

We aren't.

So draw your own conclusion.

Stephen Harper will bring Canada to the ground with the large increases of spending on National Defence, Health care and other locations that he has promised. He also promises to cut taxes that will bring our country's economy into the ground. The Conservatives are an unwise choice. The corrupt cronies after the report have been reported to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and have been banned from the Liberal Party of Canada.

The Liberal Party of Canada has also been paying the people of Canada in return of the money that we had stole from them to campaign in Quebec. Let's not vote the Conservatives into power under the Harper-MacKay leadership, let's stick with the Liberal Party, since they are clearly the Canadian Party.

When the New Democrats backed the Liberals for a few months, that wasn't a coaliation -if it were a coaliation members of the New Democrats would of been appointed to various locations in government to complete the works. Instead, the NDP supported the Liberals - that is the only thing. Not only that, the Conservatives tried to feel up the Liberals decreasing money to the Kyoto Accords.

And no, I am not trembling - I'm not an idiot.
Typical Liberal. When Liberals spend lots of money on health care it's a good thing. When another party, especially the Conservatives, do it it's going to bring the nation to the ground. Your words not mine. So the Liberals "stole" money from us and gave it back so we forgive them. Hmmm so when the court forces a guy to pay back money he stole he shouldn't go to jail. Wait -that does sound Liberal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:rolleyes:

Spring Election!

Well the Conservatives have tried a non-confidence vote twice already. It's the NDPers who keep changing their minds. Jack Layton is wishy washy one here, especially with this new motion he's bringing in suggesting an election be called. Now that's pretty stupid!!!!!! I've been an NDP supporter for a long time but Jack's not the guy for me. Neither is Steven Harper but the Conservatives are the only party around that have the chance of getting rid of these Liberals. From Liars to Bald Faced FIBERALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Oooohhhhhhh, name calling. However I find the notion that you would swing from as progressive a position as touting the NDP to supporting the Alliance VERY suspect. You can't get a whole lot more opposing views than that.

If you honestly believe in the NDP ideology but are willing to entertain an Alliance government simply to oust the Liberals, then you've abdicated every political viewpoint you've ever held.

Oooohhhhhhh, name calling. However I find the notion that you would swing from as progressive a position as touting the NDP to supporting the Alliance VERY suspect. You can't get a whole lot more opposing views than that.

If you honestly believe in the NDP ideology but are willing to entertain an Alliance government simply to oust the Liberals, then you've abdicated every political viewpoint you've ever held.
It's called Realpolitik - I learned from a few good guys named Otto Von Bismarck and Thomas Hobbes. ;)

Plator, there is no point in discussing this subject with you. We are trying to have an ADULT discussion on a possible upcoming election before Christmas, we are not here to name call.

It's called Realpolitik - I learned from a few good guys named Otto Von Bismarck and Thomas Hobbes. ;)
Realpolitik is the best way to do anything political.

Typical Liberal<snip>Wait that does sound Liberal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Oh look, an adherent to the partisan name calling crapola that the US electoral process has sunk to.


Care to dial that back a bit and discuss issues without the invective Sparky?

Personally, I'd rather have them call a spring election, because then I'd be able to actually vote in it. I'll be some annoyed if/when they call an election and I'm off voting age by three months (My Birthday is in April)

Unless they call an imediate election of course.

It's called Realpolitik - I learned from a few good guys named Otto Von Bismarck and Thomas Hobbes. ;)


The difference is, of course, that Bismark and Hobbes were effective.

Why?

Because they weren't so..... juvenile.

You've READ the lessons. You just don't have the skill or the nuance to make it work for you.

Oooo! This is getting heated.

Now let's keep this civil. I like hearing why the Liberals/Conservatives/Flavour of the day are so f*cked up/the right choice.

I'm surprised that they have been no mention of the Bloc Quebec, as they are the other strong force in the opposition that have been propping up the Conservatives through out this whoke minority thus far.

Oh and for the record... I'm going to Vote NDP. Why? I think they deserve a chance.

The NDP gave us the social services that many of us now take for granted. They paved the way for equality. You know Saskatchewan had a Bill of Human Rights long before the entire nation did? And it was all because of Tommy Douglas and his socialist party.

You know... that surplus is a good thing. It means our government is working. It would be even better to see the surplus put back into the hands of Canadians in the form of services such as healthcare (we need it for life) and education (which equips us for life) and various others.

Yes, the system needs to be reformed, but we need money going into these types of services.

Plator, there is no point in discussing this subject with you. We are trying to have an ADULT discussion on a possible upcoming election before Christmas, we are not here to name call.
I don't see any name calling. The truth is hard to hear though. :rolleyes:

I will (if I was 18) be voting Conservative.

We were up in the polls, until some idiot recorded Harper making a comment about the Poppy and put a negative spin on the whole affair. I agree with him... it has been almost 90 years and the things are impossible to keep on. I'm not a huge fan of Harper, but I wore my Poppy with a Canadian flag pin holding it on in support of him.

'Fiberals' is one. Ah well, I am officially ignoring you know, Plator - so I don't read anything you say after this post.

Oh look, an adherent to the partisan name calling crapola that the US electoral process has sunk to.


Care to dial that back a bit and discuss issues without the invective Sparky?
US elecrotoral crap has already hit us - you'll see more of it with Liberal scare tactic commercials saying that the Conservatives will ruin health care.

Sparky? Not sure what offense I'm supposed to take from that but isn't that the name calling I was accused of????? :confused:

I will (if I was 18) be voting Conservative.

We were up in the polls, until some idiot recorded Harper making a comment about the Poppy and put a negative spin on the whole affair. I agree with him... it has been almost 90 years and the things are impossible to keep on. I'm not a huge fan of Harper, but I wore my Poppy with a Canadian flag pin holding it on in support of him.

A poppy does not give Harper any recognition - he is not a war hero, he did not serve in the Canadian Forces to defend Canadian interest overseas.

Definitley will not be voting for the LIEberals.

If the NDP comes into power you will see a wave of emigration occur, what they did with ontario they will do with the country, they will bring it to it's knees and destroy it's economy in every way possible. Noticably most of the people who support the NDP are those on welfare, those who are not mature enough to see through their agenda and call them what they really are, respectively communists and those who just do it so as to be different. If the NDP comes into power i propose that canada be renamed to the UCSR, United Canadian Socialist Republics. I further propose that we all then go around lieing as the NDP manage to do so well. Somebody said something about equality, i would very much like to reffer you to the communist manifesto after you have read the NDPs agenda.

A great christmas present would be for the Tories to come into power, that would be just perfect, Canada's economy would go up and most of the people within would benefit. They are not the ideal, far from it even, expecially with harper, however an ideal party does not exist and never will, the tories are the closest you can get to the ideal without becoming fascist. Vote will be going here for sure. My Only reservation with these guys is the fact that harper is very christian other than that the tories are the best way to go.

China3, are you stoned or something?

China3, are you stoned or something?



No, i am not.

Do you have a problem with the truth?
Do you have a problem with my ability to formulate coherent thoguth and answers?

<snip>the tories are the closest you can get to the ideal without becoming fascist. Vote will be going here for sure.


Excuse me, but does that imply that the perfect party IS a fascist one? Or just really, really close to it?

Oh, and BTW, I love the empty statements like "the economy would go up and the people would benefit" without some backing on specifics.

Next there will be manna falling from the sky, a lobster in every pot, and attractive willing supermodels for every pimply teenage boy.....

So, besides: Conservative=Teh Bomb, Liberals=Fiberals, does anyone have anything of SUBSTANCE to add?

Seems not, seems you don't either.


And by the way do not twist my words i was implying tha the tory party is the closest to the ideal, the ideal being capitalism, what i meant by the fascist comment was the fact that there are other parties with capitalist agendae which however are fascist.

If the NDP comes into power you will see a wave of emigration occur, what they did with ontario they will do with the country, they will bring it to it's knees and destroy it's economy in every way possible.

I cannot lend credibility to someone who seems to be forgetting that Bob Rae and his NDP were in power during a recession. They had inherited the debt brought on by deficit spending by your precious Tories and your much loathed Liberals.

They didn't do anything to hurt the economy. They are being used as scapegoats by people who are too narrow-minded to understand that socialism doesn't equate oppression of the economy.

Noticably most of the people who support the NDP are those on welfare, those who are not mature enough to see through their agenda and call them what they really are, respectively communists and those who just do it so as to be different.

Wow, nice job with the stereotypes. Now try and get it right.

You're so wrong.

I'm a student and I'm voting NDP because I'm a socialist and NOT a communist.

If I were a communist, I'd have been voting for the various COMMUNIST parties and not a socialist party.

Socialism is NOT communism. They are very different concepts. Socialism is about helping the people by providing social funding; putting money into healthcare and education, while leaving the economy alone in most respects. However, they do provide regulation that prevents the corperate giants from hurting the consumer.

Communism is the antithesis to Capitalism and it seeks to centralise mational assets; promote equality that isn't true equality and it only is a theoretical concept. Because, it hasn't been proven to work and the communism you're thinking of is Maosim/Stalinism.

It's like saying that the Republicans are fascists. They aren't. Just as Socialists aren't Communists.

If the NDP comes into power i propose that canada be renamed to the UCSR, United Canadian Socialist Republics. I further propose that we all then go around lieing as the NDP manage to do so well.

No, because that would make us Soviets. The NDP are socialist, but not the kind of socialists that ruled the USSR. Those who ruled the USSR were mutant versions of Communists and were really just authoritarian.

Oh and while we're on the topic of 'lying', I can assume that you lie about your English skills. You do seem to be lacking. (yes, I had to!)

Further, your precious Conservatives are compulsive lyers as well; if not more so. In fact, name one honest politician! HAH! You can't. Moreover, you can't say you haven't lied. Fibbing is lying and so is surgercoating the truth and anything that even deviates from the complete and whoe truth.

Stop being a bloody elitist and get your head out of the sand.

Somebody said something about equality, i would very much like to reffer you to the communist manifesto after you have read the NDPs agenda.

And I'll refer you to the Fascism Mandate once you've finished reading the Conservative agenda.

:rolleyes: Geez, do your homework, kid!

Well the Conservatives have tried a non-confidence vote twice already. It's the NDPers who keep changing their minds. Jack Layton is wishy washy one here, especially with this new motion he's bringing in suggesting an election be called. Now that's pretty stupid!!!!!! I've been an NDP supporter for a long time but Jack's not the guy for me. Neither is Steven Harper but the Conservatives are the only party around that have the chance of getting rid of these Liberals. From Liars to Bald Faced FIBERALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you care about policies at all? How can you go from being an NDP supporter to being a CPC supporter if you actually care about how the government is run? If you support NDP type policies, it would be pretty hard to stomach CPC policies -- and vice versa.

Sounds like you are voting against the Liberals and not FOR a party.

The NDP have not been any more wishy-washy than the CPC. The NDP voted FOR the same sex marriage proposal, just as the said all along.

The CPC supported Martin's original budget earlier this year. The NDP said they couldn't - not without some changes. The CPC withdrew their support of the budget, thinking they could bring the government down. The Liberals accepted the changes proposed by the NDP, thus the NDP voted for it.

Both the CPC and the NDP changed positions on the original budget vote. It's up to you to decide who had the better reasons for changing their mind. In neither case was it because they were "wishy-washy".

Where'S the option "I don't care, I'll be exercising my voting right whenever the elections comes around? (Canadian)" option?

As for voting strategically, I'd remind everyone that voting your conviction is voting strategically since every vote gives money to the party. You know that your candidate will not win in your riding? Give his party some finance for the next four years so they can fight better next time.

As for me, I know that I won't be voting conservative or Bloc Quebecois. Which leaves me with two choices. I'm waiting for their respective platforms to make up my mind.

And I urge my fellow Quebecers to stop the Bloc nonsense. Vote conservative if you want but not for the Bloc. They don't serve our interest all that well. Duceppe had enough political power to force Martin into concessions from the federal (just like Layton did) but he opted to scread loudly and pout like a little child and ally himself with the Conservative which is diametrically opposed as far as ideologies go. What a waste of political clout.

Noticably most of the people who support the NDP are those on welfare, those who are not mature enough to see through their agenda and call them what they really are, respectively communists and those who just do it so as to be different.

Don't be an idiot. Do you really think that people on welfare make up 20% of the voting population? I support the NDP, and I make $50,000 + per year. Former bank economists run for seats as NDPers.

Did you even read the statistics (and the numbers backing them up) that I posted that showed that NDP governments balance budgets more frequently than either Liberal or conservative governments?

Both the CPC and the NDP changed positions on the original budget vote. It's up to you to decide who had the better reasons for changing their mind. In neither case was it because they were "wishy-washy".
Though on this non-confidence issue, you could call the opposition the ditherers. :D

They have really been touch and go on it; really wishy-washy, especially the CPC. The NDP have shown a touch of backbone, and they have also demonstrated a willingliness to work with the government rather than topple it in favour of an election.

The CPC at one point did, but they didn't like the changes and they then paired up with the Bloc. When they made a coalition, it was fine, but when the Liberals got "in bed" with the NDP, the CPC went all "righteous" moral on them... hypocrisy at its best!

Wow, you are good you make assumptions without knowing the facts, great job K. Another example of those lacking maturity and being in love with the NDP.

Though on this non-confidence issue, you could call the opposition the ditherers. :D

They have really been touch and go on it; really wishy-washy, especially the CPC. The NDP have shown a touch of backbone, and they have also demonstrated a willingliness to work with the government rather than topple it in favour of an election.

The CPC at one point did, but they didn't like the changes and they then paired up with the Bloc. When they made a coalition, it was fine, but when the Liberals got "in bed" with the NDP, the CPC went all "righteous" moral on them... hypocrisy at its best!

LOL - I still wouldn't call it "wishy-washy". I might call it "politicking" or "maneuvering for a better position" though.

It’s what politicians do.

Wow, you are good you make assumptions without knowing the facts, great job K. Another example of those lacking maturity and being in love with the NDP.

Would you care to actually debate real facts, or would you prefer to continue taunting other people and ignore my posts?

Where'S the option "I don't care, I'll be exercising my voting right whenever the elections comes around? (Canadian)" option?

I wanted this option as well.

Wow, you are good you make assumptions without knowing the facts, great job K. Another example of those lacking maturity and being in love with the NDP.
I used to be a fan of the Progressive Conservatives, but that was back in the day when Reform Party was a nice little freak show that didn't bother to interfere with a good traditional party. I would have still supported them because they had progressive policies, but fiscally sound methods for spending and national budgets, while abstaining from that whole Common Sense Revolution line of bullshit.

After the merge happened, I went to the Liberals only to be disappointed. And yes, I once voted for the Liberals. Yes, I was a wee lass - yes, extremely under age, but my dad let me make my choice on the ballot and I voted for John Manning in the Ottawa South riding.

I'm in favour of the Bloc, but as a resident of Ontario, I can't vote for them, and since the Marijuana Party doesn't have any teeth and the Green Party is too touchy-feely on this whole tree hugging thing, I found that the NDP's mandate was closest to my beliefs. I don't particularly love them, so much as I believe that this party has a mandate that is closest to my beliefs.

I used to think I was liberal, but the socialist ideals and concepts truly appealed to me. I was always aware of the political environment because my dad made me aware. I followed the news and wanted to know.

Tell me how that isn't mature; how it isn't informed when I have done what I need to in order to inform myself. Why am I immature as a voter if I defend the party who represents my beliefs? Is this not a form of democracy that we live in?

So have many voters who don't opt for your precious CPC; they have instead opted for others. Does this make them immature?

I wanted this option as well.
Sorry I didn't think of it guys. It is a good option too.

I used to be a fan of the Progressive Conservatives, but that was back in the day when Reform Party was a nice little freak show that didn't bother to interfere with a good traditional party. I would have still supported them because they had progressive policies, but fiscally sound methods for spending and national budgets, while abstaining from that whole Common Sense Revolution line of bullshit. <snip>


Excellent response. You have definitely shown that you have put a lot of thought into your vote. Considerably more than many, for sure.

Oooohhhhhhh, name calling. However I find the notion that you would swing from as progressive a position as touting the NDP to supporting the Alliance VERY suspect. You can't get a whole lot more opposing views than that.

If you honestly believe in the NDP ideology but are willing to entertain an Alliance government simply to oust the Liberals, then you've abdicated every political viewpoint you've ever held.
Seconded.

I'm pleased to see that no Canadian said they wouldn't be voting! Yay us!

(Of course, those under age get a free pass on this. But if you're old enough to vote, there is very little excuse for not doing so.)

Excellent response. You have definitely shown that you have put a lot of thought into your vote. Considerably more than many, for sure.
I did because I was always interested in politics and the news.

It often helps if you're interested in that kind of thing; though you can be just as easily informed even without having a keen interest.

Being an informed voter makes all the difference. But, there is nothing wrong with being uninformed, as long as you don't propogate your ignorance toward others and refuse to listen to their reasons.

I'm pleased to see that no Canadian said they wouldn't be voting! Yay us!

(Of course, those under age get a free pass on this. But if you're old enough to vote, there is very little excuse for not doing so.)If you're underage, do what I did, annex your parent's ballot if they don't want to vote! :D

But, there is nothing wrong with being uninformed, as long as you don't propogate your ignorance toward others and refuse to listen to their reasons.

You're probably right - but I have a prejudice against the willfully uninformed. <Sigh> It's probably not a better prejudice than being biased against race, but I can't seem to stop myself.

You're probably right - but I have a prejudice against the willfully uninformed. <Sigh> It's probably not a better prejudice than being biased against race, but I can't seem to stop myself.
Ignorance isn't dangerous until it hurts someone or it offends another person because the ignorant person refused to learn.

You can't be completely against ignorance, otherwise children would be completely robbed of their innocence.

There's a current of undue freak-out-edness making the rounds in this thread re: the NDP. I'm far from convinced it is not all in fact originating from one single poster using pseudonyms, but nonetheless, all the carping just serves to underscore for me to what extent Jack and the NDP are in fact sending shivers of fear down the spines of many so-called 'Tories' in this country.

Not because Jack has a snowball's chance in Hell of taking the PMO - no, no not even in my wildest fantasies will that happen - it's because the rabid right-wing with it's heart and soul firmly entrenched in Red Deer, Alberta knows that we'll most likely come out of this upcoming election with a stronger, more vocal political left-wing, who will call the shots over the inevitable Liberal, centrist minority gov that will emerge for our nation's next mandate.

Want it to go differently, so-called 'Tories'? Stop shooting yourselves in the damn foot, then. Get rid of both Harper and McKay - they're damaged goods in the eyes of the rest of the country. Stop disenfranchising the traditional 'Red Tory' voting bloc, who don't trust the Reform/Alliance/ New Conservative drive for social conservatism. And really, it might be a damn smart thing to boot out of your caucus people who talk crap about women, gays, blacks and aboriginals. Oh, and it might play nicely east of Calgary if you were to show spine where the US is concerned, instead of showing kissable lips suitable for Republican backsides.

Am I getting through yet?

Until you clean your own house properly, don't expect a written invitation from Canadians to manage the affairs of ours.

Ignorance isn't dangerous until it hurts someone or it offends another person because the ignorant person refused to learn.

You can't be completely against ignorance, otherwise children would be completely robbed of their innocence.

Ah, that's why I chose the phrase "willfully uninformed". Kids are always learning - they definitely don't fall into that category. But adults can be "willfully uninformed" -- if they have a responsibility to know something for the good of themselves, their family, their community, and the information is freely and easily available to help them make an informed decision - and then they can't be bothered? Augh! It drives me nuts!

** It's like having the doctor say "You have cancer. We have two options: surgery or chemotherapy. You need to choose which option you want to pursue. Here are some pamphlets. I'm also scheduling some info sessions for you to attend. Talk it over with your family, if you like - and then let me know what works for you." And then you flip a coin to decide.

** Yes, yes, I know that no doctor worth the title would present this choice this way. But you get my point.

Ah, that's why I chose the phrase "willfully uninformed". Kids are always learning - they definitely don't fall into that category. But adults can be "willfully uninformed" -- if they have a responsibility to know something for the good of themselves, their family, their community, and the information is freely and easily available to help them make an informed decision - and then they can't be bothered? Augh! It drives me nuts!
Yes... I know it's hard to comprehend, but there are stupid people out there who think that being smart is a sin so they want to be ignorant because that way they don't scare away people by being informed - didn't you know? :D

As a Canadian citizen and an active member of the Liberal Party of Canada. I place my blame on the shoulders of the opposition if we have to go to the booths to vote during the Winter Holidays. They are the source of the cause, please look and see that there are important things right now under debate in Parliament. If the opposition calls for a vote of no-confidence in Parliament next week Tuesday, these will get cancelled out and our Members of Parliament will not be doing their elected job.

Vote Liberal.

Please leave Canada.

Please leave Canada.

What? He's got a right to an opinion. And he voiced that one without stooping to rudeness.

What? He's got a right to an opinion. And he voiced that one without stooping to rudeness.
I certainly agree, and he had done so in a fashion that wasn't offensive, even though it was a touch militant.

It's a very simple question of when.

After all, we know that Prime Minister Martin promised to have spring time elections following the final report from the Gomery Inquiry.

Meanwhile, the other parties are deciding that they don't like this and that they'd like it sooner.

So, what do you Canadian voters think?
I hope this blows up in Layton's and Harpers faces.

Recent polls would indicate another Liberal minority government so why bother wasting taxpayers money on a Christmas time election?

The good news would be that another sad loss for the Conservatives will mean the exit of Harper and then perhaps the Cons can elect a more moderate leader.

Layton? I used to like the guy, but his recent behaviour suggests that he really doesn't give a damn about Canadian politics.

An election at this point in time will play right into the Blocs separatist strategy, and any idiot should see that.

Harper? Well, he just wants to be Prime Minister for all the wrong reasons. He also doesn't give a damn about Canadian politics and his recent dances with Gilles Duceppe clearly demonstrate that.

If the next election brings roughly the same result as we had last time (a Liberal minority) and that would be my guess, then Harper and Layton should be fired and replaced by strong federalists. We will need strong federalists to help contain any shift towards Quebec separation, because it will once again come back to the forefront.

I concede Canuckheaven. You make very good points.

But, I think the party that will stand to lose the most is the CPC - they pushed the whole early election bit.

Though...the NDP are pushing for a Feburary election, with the motion to be done in January... last I checked.

I hope this blows up in Layton's and Harpers faces.

Recent polls would indicate another Liberal minority government so why bother wasting taxpayers money on a Christmas time election?

The good news would be that another sad loss for the Conservatives will mean the exit of Harper and then perhaps the Cons can elect a more moderate leader.

Layton? I used to like the guy, but his recent behaviour suggests that he really doesn't give a damn about Canadian politics.

An election at this point in time will play right into the Blocs separatist strategy, and any idiot should see that.

Harper? Well, he just wants to be Prime Minister for all the wrong reasons. He also doesn't give a damn about Canadian politics and his recent dances with Gilles Duceppe clearly demonstrate that.

If the next election brings roughly the same result as we had last time (a Liberal minority) and that would be my guess, then Harper and Layton should be fired and replaced by strong federalists. We will need strong federalists to help contain any shift towards Quebec separation, because it will once again come back to the forefront.

I don't agree with all your points (I might prefer Ed, but I'll take Jack over any other party leader right now), but I agree - we need strong federalist leaders.

I don't understand provincialism to be honest, at least at the government level. I understand why it happened - each province fought for as many rights and responsibilities as possible before joining confederation, but I honestly don't understand why anyone is clinging to those old ideals. They may be what's best for each individual province (though I have my doubts!), but it certainly isn't what is best for Canadians or Canada. That doesn't mean I don't have pride in my province - I do. And we'll mud-wrestle you all for the best province prize! But I don't want to put the welfare of my province above the welfare of my country. I don't want to get screwed either - but real federalism should recognize regional disparities while still doing what's best for all. (IE: Helping out NFLD, for example, because it benefits all of Canada in the end.)

Ed rocks my world.

Ed rocks my world.
Ed is by far the better politician in any contest between him and Jack. Ed certainly has more savvy than Harpo, or should I say Groucho?:D

I don't agree with all your points (I might prefer Ed, but I'll take Jack over any other party leader right now), but I agree - we need strong federalist leaders.

I don't understand provincialism to be honest, at least at the government level. I understand why it happened - each province fought for as many rights and responsibilities as possible before joining confederation, but I honestly don't understand why anyone is clinging to those old ideals. They may be what's best for each individual province (though I have my doubts!), but it certainly isn't what is best for Canadians or Canada. That doesn't mean I don't have pride in my province - I do. And we'll mud-wrestle you all for the best province prize! But I don't want to put the welfare of my province above the welfare of my country. I don't want to get screwed either - but real federalism should recognize regional disparities while still doing what's best for all. (IE: Helping out NFLD, for example, because it benefits all of Canada in the end.)
Yes!! This country needs strong federalist leaders. Layton has been manipulated by the agendas of Harpo and Duceppe and I find that sad.

Provincialism should never overide federalism. This country is too big and diverse to have deadly fragmentation. I don't see any long term gain by any province if the Canadian federation fails.

I still think Paul Martin should have followed the NDP's lead on Healthcare rather than show Jack the door last week. I think the deal struck between the opposition parties this weekend is a direct result of Martin rejecting Jack's support in the House.

*Edit: but I still think we'll see another Liberal minority elected this time out. Hopefully one where the NDP is another five or six seats stronger, and the Libs one or two weaker.

I concede Canuckheaven. You make very good points.

But, I think the party that will stand to lose the most is the CPC - they pushed the whole early election bit.

Though...the NDP are pushing for a Feburary election, with the motion to be done in January... last I checked.
At this point in time, the party that stands to gain the most in any quickie election is the damn Bloc. The CPC should lose the most and rightly so. Harpo is totally power hungry and went to bed with the separatists (who they loathe) for political gain.

Harpo needs a new career.:D

At this point in time, the party that stands to gain the most in any quickie election is the damn Bloc. The CPC should lose the most and rightly so. Harpo is totally power hungry and went to bed with the separatists (who they loathe) for political gain.

Harpo needs a new career.:D
McKay isn't too fresh a choice on the menu, either. Both of them have the taint of the public lies and a backroom deal that saw the Progressive Conservative Party done over like a nameless hobo in a railyard. Thing is, neither of them seem to be aware the extent to which they're both damaged goods.

But they are. And the public knows it.

I still think Paul Martin should have followed the NDP's lead on Healthcare rather than show Jack the door last week. I think the deal struck between the opposition parties this weekend is a direct result of Martin rejecting Jack's support in the House.
I think that Martin has to demonstrate that he indeed is the Prime Minister and he stated in good faith that an election would be called right after the final Gomery report. IF the Liberals were willing to stand or fall with the Gomery Report, then they are acting in good faith. By trying to force an election a couple of months earlier looks bad on the opposition parties.

My personal thoughts on all of this? I think that the final Gomery Report will give the Liberals a huge boost in support and I think the opposition parties are aware of that possibility and therefore want to precipitate an earlier election. Shame on them.

My personal thoughts on all of this? I think that the final Gomery Report will give the Liberals a huge boost in support and I think the opposition parties are aware of that possibility and therefore want to precipitate an earlier election. Shame on them.
That being the case, you can't really fault the opposition parties for wanting more of a level playing-field, can you?

That being the case, you can't really fault the opposition parties for wanting more of a level playing-field, can you?
If the acquisition of "more of a level playing-field" could result in the weakening of Canada's fabric, then yes I can blame them for putting their partisan politics above the best interests of the country.

The party that stands to gain the most from an election at this moment in time is the Bloc, which IMHO is bad for Canada. Harper and Layton should realize that an election right now will unlikely yield a majority government and in all likelihood, the results could be the same as the last election. Why waste taxpayers money on an election that ultimately will benefit the separatists the most?

BTW, as I write this reply, you are aware that the PQ are in the midst of a telephone poll to elect a new leader and one of the frontrunners is promising another referendum shortly after the PQ is returned to power?

You did not sway my vote, it's still going to the Liberals.

As is mine and my husband's. I really must admit I find it quite baffling what so many have against Paul Martin? They seem to want to make him pay for the sins of Jean 'ol boy. Paul Martin and Jean fell out of favour a long time ago. Paul Martin had very little to nothing to do with the sponsorship scandal and in case everyone has a short term memory, Paul Martin has given us balanced budget after balanced budget. We have not been running at a deficit in years and we have huge trade surpluses and people think this is bad? Whoah, I can't recall in my life the government being as fiscally responsible as the Liberals. Lets not forget, it was Paul Martin who called for Gomery in the first place. Paul Martin has pledged to give us huge tax cuts and I don't know about you, but I sure would like some of my money back personally. The Liberals are the ONLY choice.

http://www.elections.ca/pol/images/new_lib.gif

As is mine and my husband's. I really must admit I find it quite baffling what so many have against Paul Martin? They seem to want to make him pay for the sins of Jean 'ol boy. Paul Martin and Jean fell out of favour a long time ago. Paul Martin had very little to nothing to do with the sponsorship scandal and in case everyone has a short term memory, Paul Martin has given us balanced budget after balanced budget. We have not been running at a deficit in years and we have huge trade surpluses and people think this is bad? Whoah, I can't recall in my life the government being as fiscally responsible as the Liberals. Lets not forget, it was Paul Martin who called for Gomery in the first place. Paul Martin has pledged to give us huge tax cuts and I don't know about you, but I sure would like some of my money back personally. The Liberals are the ONLY choice.

http://www.elections.ca/pol/images/new_lib.gif

Yes! Massive tax cuts are the only answer! :rolleyes:

I turned 18 this year - in my riding a few years back, a university dominated area (Trinity-Spadina, Toronto) all the students voted Liberal to prevent the Conservatives from coming into power when the NDP would have easily won the riding normally. I'll be voting NDP whenever the election comes up.

As is mine and my husband's. I really must admit I find it quite baffling what so many have against Paul Martin? They seem to want to make him pay for the sins of Jean 'ol boy. Paul Martin and Jean fell out of favour a long time ago. Paul Martin had very little to nothing to do with the sponsorship scandal and in case everyone has a short term memory, Paul Martin has given us balanced budget after balanced budget. We have not been running at a deficit in years and we have huge trade surpluses and people think this is bad? Whoah, I can't recall in my life the government being as fiscally responsible as the Liberals. Lets not forget, it was Paul Martin who called for Gomery in the first place. Paul Martin has pledged to give us huge tax cuts and I don't know about you, but I sure would like some of my money back personally. The Liberals are the ONLY choice.
While I'm a supporter of the NDP, I don't have a problem with Paul Martin as our Prime Minister. Given the circumstances, I think he's doing nicely.

He is like Bob Rae. When Bob Rae was elected in Ontario, his party inherited the years of deficit spending by the previous Liberal and Conservative regimes. While it isn't the exact same situation for Martin; the basis is the same. When he came into power, he inherited the scandal fuelled by the Chretien regime.

While Prime Minister Martin may be guilty of ignorance, he had done what a good leader would do. He didn't sweep it under the rug. In fact, not only did he call for the Gomery inquiry, but in a national address, he made a public apology - how many leaders have done that?

I remember watching and thinking that even though he probably isn't telling the whole truth, there is something sincere about him...

Now, how many supporters of non-Liberal parties could say this kind of thing?

Now, how many supporters of non-Liberal parties could say this kind of thing?
Not too damn many and that is certain.

BTW, as I write this reply, you are aware that the PQ are in the midst of a telephone poll to elect a new leader and one of the frontrunners is promising another referendum shortly after the PQ is returned to power?
I am aware of the leadership race in Quebec. Which of the frontrunners is making this promise? And as for referenda, thumping your chest during a leadership race and actually seceding are light-years apart.

I'm not too worried about it right at the moment. And in any event, if Quebec ultimately decides to leave Confederation, I might just go with them.

Ideally, the election would be in the summer, that way I can work rediculous hours for elections canada like last time.

$12 an hour for doing absolutely nothing.

As is mine and my husband's. I really must admit I find it quite baffling what so many have against Paul Martin? They seem to want to make him pay for the sins of Jean 'ol boy.Nahhhh, I miss Crouton deeply. I thought Paul Martin was greedy in his ambition to grace the PMO when he forced Crouton's ouster. I might still have voted 'strategically' for the Grits if they hadn't pulled a Tory routine with all those glisteningly sharp long knives.

Ideally, the election would be in the summer, that way I can work rediculous hours for elections canada like last time.

$12 an hour for doing absolutely nothing.
Sign me up!

Yes! Massive tax cuts are the only answer! :rolleyes:

I turned 18 this year - in my riding a few years back, a university dominated area (Trinity-Spadina, Toronto) all the students voted Liberal to prevent the Conservatives from coming into power when the NDP would have easily won the riding normally. I'll be voting NDP whenever the election comes up.

Well I'm 36 be 37 in March, Zep (my husband even older..lol) Anyway, the NDP have NO chance of forming a government, none, zip, nadda. They have never in Canadian history formed a federal government and there is a reason for that. They are out of touch with the way the world works. Sure, they'd empty the coffers in no time flat. Create tons of new jobs, government jobs that is and the economy would be on the verge of collapse as they handed out to every tom, dick and harry. The Liberals have a good record on spending on Education. As I live in Ontario I recall the promises of a certain NDP member named Bob Rae, you may recall him? He broke every promise to everyone. He did much harm to Ontario as Premier. I've been around the Canadian political landscape for a few years to say the least. I believe the Canadian people will hand the Liberals a majority government if the other parties try to pull this bullshit over Christmas. You won't gain seats, you'll lose them and that you can take to the bank!

If the acquisition of "more of a level playing-field" could result in the weakening of Canada's fabric, then yes I can blame them for putting their partisan politics above the best interests of the country.

The party that stands to gain the most from an election at this moment in time is the Bloc, which IMHO is bad for Canada. Harper and Layton should realize that an election right now will unlikely yield a majority government and in all likelihood, the results could be the same as the last election. Why waste taxpayers money on an election that ultimately will benefit the separatists the most?

BTW, as I write this reply, you are aware that the PQ are in the midst of a telephone poll to elect a new leader and one of the frontrunners is promising another referendum shortly after the PQ is returned to power?

CanuckHeaven, the Bloc will make gains regardless of whether the election is held in December, January, or March. The new PQ leader will be elected regardless of whether the house falls. The final Gomery report is unlikely to mitigate the impact of the sponsorship scandal on the Liberal party in Quebec.

We will have an election - either winter or spring - unless Martin wants to face the results of promising an election after the final Gomery report and then reneging on that promise. That election is unlikely to result in a majority for anyone, simply because of anti-Liberal sentiment in Quebec.

We both want a stronger Canada. But delaying the election indefinitely until the Liberals can earn a majority is not only impossible, it is undemocratic. Because it will take years of reaching out to Canadians to make them a part of Canada, and not just citizens of provinces that happen to reside in Canada.

The sponsorship program was a terrible thing because it was corrupted. But the idea behind the sponsorship scandal was sound. It was Canada reaching out to Quebec, making them feel a part of Canada. If they could have just somehow toned down the anti-Quebec rhetoric coming out of the West, it might have been even more successful. Instead, it was destroyed by politicians who were politicking instead of building. A not unusual move for an average politician, except that these ones were also guilty of defrauding taxpayers.

Thanks to NationStates, I have had the opportunity to talk with several Quebecois, all of whom were surprised to hear that I am from the West but don't think that they are leeches and definitely don't want them to leave. Because, not surprisingly I guess, the Western sentiment most Quebecois hear about in the news is "Quebec is sucking our tax dollars" or "Let them leave" or "Why don't they speak English like everyone else?" I am proud to say that I've turned a couple of Quebecois from separatists to federalists. I wish I could have the same success rates with some Albertans I know. But I digress.

The next election, whenever it is, will result in a minority government. If it is a Conservative minority, it will fall the first time it makes a move that the Bloc can't support. If it is a Liberal minority, we will have more of the same. I don't see the Liberals working for a stronger federalism - I see them working to remain in power. While those two goals do have some of the same paths, I don't see Martin reaching out to Quebec or the West. And that's a problem.

Meanwhile, I don't understand you calling the NDP anti-federalist simply because they have lost confidence in the Liberal government. The NDP don't support secession by any province, and they ultimately support a stronger federalist government, mostly through the types of policies they tend to support - such as more federal control over healthcare and education, for example. My biggest problem with the NDP in this regard is that they don't have much presence in Quebec - no doubt because NDP and Bloc policies are very similar and there is only federalism to distinguish them, and Quebec federalists tend to vote Liberal. They can gain more votes in a campaign in other provinces, such as BC and the Atlantic provinces. And of course, the standard battleground of the Ontario urban areas.

Anyway, CanuckHeaven, we do agree in principal, we just have chosen different paths to reach that goal.

I do, cause I just turned 18 in June :D

*wants to wield power!!*

Quick question - why do so many Canadians want a strong central government? Is there some game of "winner take all" going on in Canada?

Quick question - why do so many Canadians want a strong central government? Is there some game of "winner take all" going on in Canada?

Our damnable Pluralism does something like this:

Liberal Government gets voted in by 55% of the populous...
---some sort of thing happens---
Liberal ends up with a minority government in Parliment...
---s'more crap happens---
Suddenly no laws are passed easily, no issues are firmly decided on, and millions are spent on bullshit like the Gomery Report.

Quick question - why do so many Canadians want a strong central government? Is there some game of "winner take all" going on in Canada?
A better question would be, why do so many Canadians want a strong central government, and why do the two largest opposition parties not reflect that popular position insofar as they wish to devolve Federal powers to the Provinces?

Quick question - why do so many Canadians want a strong central government? Is there some game of "winner take all" going on in Canada?

Because Canada is a federalist country. Unlike the USA which is de-centralized. It's called a "federation"

Because Canada is a federalist country. Unlike the USA which is de-centralized. It's called a "federation"

Only in words my dear. Every election we find ourselves closer and closer to the US style.

Well I'm 36 be 37 in March, Zep (my husband even older..lol) Anyway, the NDP have NO chance of forming a government, none, zip, nadda. They have never in Canadian history formed a federal government and there is a reason for that. They are out of touch with the way the world works. Sure, they'd empty the coffers in no time flat. Create tons of new jobs, government jobs that is and the economy would be on the verge of collapse as they handed out to every tom, dick and harry. The Liberals have a good record on spending on Education. As I live in Ontario I recall the promises of a certain NDP member named Bob Rae, you may recall him? He broke every promise to everyone. He did much harm to Ontario as Premier. I've been around the Canadian political landscape for a few years to say the least. I believe the Canadian people will hand the Liberals a majority government if the other parties try to pull this bullshit over Christmas. You won't gain seats, you'll lose them and that you can take to the bank!

Actually, do you want to know why the NDP has never and may never form a federal government? It's because of our electoral system. The NDP get a LOT of votes, but they're spread out over the country - meaning they don't win as many seats as their percentage of the popular vote should indicate. Now, if we implemented PR, then they still probably wouldn't form a federal government (at least not a majority) but they would certainly have a far greater influence.

Your ideas about the NDP and Liberals seem to be greatly skewed and influenced by commonly held beliefs that aren't always true.

A better question would be, why do so many Canadians want a strong central government, and why do the two largest opposition parties not reflect that popular position insofar as they wish to devolve Federal powers to the Provinces?

Probably because one party is afraid that if they win power, and pass such powers to the central government, they might not be in power the next time around, and the other party will have them for lunch.

Fear of the winner take all scenario keeps them from actually implementing it.

It's called a "federation"
No, Steph, it's called 'Confederation'.

But you knew that.

Only in words my dear. Every election we find ourselves closer and closer to the US style.
More's the pity, dear.

Probably because one party is afraid that if they win power, and pass such powers to the central government, they might not be in power the next time around, and the other party will have them for lunch.

Fear of the winner take all scenario keeps them from actually implementing it.
No, I don't think you've quite got it.

We both want a stronger Canada. But delaying the election indefinitely until the Liberals can earn a majority is not only impossible, it is undemocratic. Because it will take years of reaching out to Canadians to make them a part of Canada, and not just citizens of provinces that happen to reside in Canada.
Here, here. Or hear, hear. Something like that.

No, I don't think you've quite got it.
They're lying bastards?

No, Steph, it's called 'Confederation'.

But you knew that.

Hehehe, two different things my dear. :)

Both are correct.

Actually, do you want to know why the NDP has never and may never form a federal government? It's because of our electoral system. The NDP get a LOT of votes, but they're spread out over the country - meaning they don't win as many seats as their percentage of the popular vote should indicate. Now, if we implemented PR, then they still probably wouldn't form a federal government (at least not a majority) but they would certainly have a far greater influence.

Your ideas about the NDP and Liberals seem to be greatly skewed and influenced by commonly held beliefs that aren't always true.
I've spoken directly with Jack Layton on a couple of occasions - this is one area that an honest, true minority gov held in place by the NDP would set to rights. The best scenario is to parcel PR together with Senate Reform.

More's the pity, dear.
Of course; Another poor example of Canadian Politics: Ontario pays 10 Billion in Taxes to federal government and only gets 4 billion back. Quebec is deemed a "financially dependant province" by the Government, who then allows them to keep their 10 Billion, whilst receiving the full tax return unlike Ontario. Seems fair to me.

**Note: monetary figures are estimates.

Well I'm 36 be 37 in March, Zep (my husband even older..lol) Anyway, the NDP have NO chance of forming a government, none, zip, nadda. They have never in Canadian history formed a federal government and there is a reason for that. They are out of touch with the way the world works. Sure, they'd empty the coffers in no time flat. Create tons of new jobs, government jobs that is and the economy would be on the verge of collapse as they handed out to every tom, dick and harry. The Liberals have a good record on spending on Education. As I live in Ontario I recall the promises of a certain NDP member named Bob Rae, you may recall him? He broke every promise to everyone. He did much harm to Ontario as Premier. I've been around the Canadian political landscape for a few years to say the least. I believe the Canadian people will hand the Liberals a majority government if the other parties try to pull this bullshit over Christmas. You won't gain seats, you'll lose them and that you can take to the bank!

Stephi, you are aware that the NDP have real economists in the party these days, correct? Despite BC Liberal party hype, the last NDP government in BC was actually running surpluses and job gains (though the Liberal machine had everyone convinced that the economy was falling apart and the government was in debt - the auditor report that came out after the 2000 election proved otherwise). Lorne Calvart's government in Saskatchewan is also doing well - their economy is also improving, and they are fighting for an Alberta/NFLD-style equalization plan that would allow them to keep royalties on resources instead of having them clawed back (although Sask still pays out more than it receives in equalization already, this would allow them to invest more in industry while still meeting their other goals).

Furthermore, as I have already pointed out in this thread, NDP governments have balanced the books more often than Liberal or Conservative governments. Believe it or not, NDPers believe in a strong economy just as much as anyone else. And did you even see their budget plan in the 2004 election? Did you see the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives think tanks analysis of the budget plans for the NDP, Libs, and Cons? They had the NDP budget ranked as the most fiscally responsible one of the three!

Instead of buying into the tired old rhetoric of "the NDP are nothing but spendthrift socialists that would drive the country to its knees", take a closer look at the party.

You're right that the NDP will not be forming the government anytime soon - but part of that is that Canada has been stuck in this Conservative/Liberal rut forever. But if the Liberals' only election campaign is "Vote Liberal or the Conservatives will win", that doesn't lead Canada anywhere.

I've spoken directly with Jack Layton on a couple of occasions - this is one area that an honest, true minority gov held in place by the NDP would set to rights. The best scenario is to parcel PR together with Senate Reform.

You're probably right...it seems like PR is the kind of thing that is never going to happen here, but it would be great if it did.

They're lying bastards?

Towards the end of the last Liberal government they did something that happens in Washington every day, we just don't have a name for it, because we don't tolerate it in our system. You call it "pork"

However now, many people are having trouble being able to separate this current Liberal government from the last. Even though Paul Martin cleaned house of all who were involved.

Towards the end of the last Liberal government they did something that happens in Washington every day, we just don't have a name for it, because we don't tolerate it in our system. You call it "pork"

However now, many people are having trouble being able to separate this current Liberal government from the last. Even though Paul Martin cleaned house of all who were involved.

It's called "tar". Your opponent brushes it on, and it doesn't come off.

You may know the American equivalent:

"Tax and spend liberal" Democrat
"Corrupt Neocon" Republican

A better question would be, why do so many Canadians want a strong central government, and why do the two largest opposition parties not reflect that popular position insofar as they wish to devolve Federal powers to the Provinces?
Probably because one party is afraid that if they win power, and pass such powers to the central government, they might not be in power the next time around, and the other party will have them for lunch.

Fear of the winner take all scenario keeps them from actually implementing it.
If one party wins (a majority), they are the "central" government.

I'm not sure what "all" you think the "winner" would be taking. (?)

If one party wins (a majority), they are the "central" government.

I'm not sure what "all" you think the "winner" would be taking. (?)

If the central government is made stronger (i.e., given absolute power over the provinces), then it doesn't matter who gets elected in local elections - whoever wins the central government "wins" all.

It's a big deal here in the US - the relative power of the Federal government over the States. Our Constitution places limits on it - the framers foresaw the endgame of "winner take all" with a strong central government, and took steps to prevent it.

Anyway, CanuckHeaven, we do agree in principal, we just have chosen different paths to reach that goal.
Yes I tend to believe that there is a general consensus in thought and principal. WTG on selling Canada to the two Quebecquois that you spoke to.:)

Thanks for your post!!

Stephi, you are aware that the NDP have real economists in the party these days, correct? Despite BC Liberal party hype, the last NDP government in BC was actually running surpluses and job gains (though the Liberal machine had everyone convinced that the economy was falling apart and the government was in debt - the auditor report that came out after the 2000 election proved otherwise). Lorne Calvart's government in Saskatchewan is also doing well - their economy is also improving, and they are fighting for an Alberta/NFLD-style equalization plan that would allow them to keep royalties on resources instead of having them clawed back (although Sask still pays out more than it receives in equalization already, this would allow them to invest more in industry while still meeting their other goals).

Have you checked out what they're doing in Manitoba? Exactly what I say they would do. Manitoba has the second (only to Alberta) lowest unemployment rate in the country, why? Because they are doing nothing but creating new government jobs.

Also, I think it is important that we separate the federal NDP from provincial NDP. As they are not the same. So it cuts both ways.

Of course; Another poor example of Canadian Politics: Ontario pays 10 Billion in Taxes to federal government and only gets 4 billion back. Quebec is deemed a "financially dependant province" by the Government, who then allows them to keep their 10 Billion, whilst receiving the full tax return unlike Ontario. Seems fair to me.

**Note: monetary figures are estimates.

The purpose of equalization is to allow provinces to provide “comparable levels of service at comparable levels of taxation.” The program’s goal is to ensure citizens in all provinces have access to roughly the same level of social services – such as education and social assistance – without having to pay exorbitant levels of taxation. Some provinces are wealthier than others - equalization payments are used to ensure that the poorer provinces can still provide adequate services to its population.

This is one of the primary roots of federation.

On a per capita basis, Quebec does not receive the most money. In fact, it receives the least per capita of all the provinces who are net receivers.


http://67.18.37.14/32/176/upload/p1772660.gif

For those of you unfamiliar with accounting practices, parantheses () indicate a negative amount.

yeah about that... funny thing about that graph.. Quebec has 7 Million people; The other provinces recieving benefits are under a million. I doesn't change the fact that it recieves more... Maybe if they didn't spend all that money ensuring that they can use the notwithstanding clause and prevening english from appearing on their signs...

HA! Someone wants me to leave my country of birth due to my political affiliation? What a loser. People here on NationStates, need to have a lesson on debating.

Also, I think it is important that we separate the federal NDP from provincial NDP. As they are not the same.

Membership at the provincial level in the NDP equals membership in the federal party as well. The NDP tends not to separate provincial from federal as much as other parties. Of course, provinces are run by those that are elected to their governments, their decisions are not dictated by party central or anything. And obviously, NDP members don't march in lockstep anymore than than than members of other parties.

But if you feel the need to separate the successes of provincial NDP governments from potential future NDP governments, then you can't really hold the failures of provincial NDP governments against them either. Which leaves you with a blank slate when looking at the federal NDP, so you can only judge them on their platform and policies.

If you were actually willing to do that, instead of falling back on scary anti-NDP rhetoric, I would be satisfied.

To be honest, I have no problem with you or anyone voting Liberal, as long as they can also accept that I won't. As long as people aren't voting Conservative or Bloc, I'm happy. Well, that's not exactly true - I feel a reasonably strong Conservative opposition is a good thing.

I'm just trying to dispell some of the "crazy stupid socialist" myth that persists on clinging to the NDP.

But if you feel the need to separate the successes of provincial NDP governments from potential future NDP governments, then you can't really hold the failures of provincial NDP governments against them either. Which leaves you with a blank slate when looking at the federal NDP, so you can only judge them on their platform and policies.

If you were actually willing to do that, instead of falling back on scary anti-NDP rhetoric, I would be satisfied.

Then if you want it that way, I have one name. Bob Rae. ;)

yeah about that... funny thing about that graph.. Quebec has 7 Million people; The other provinces recieving benefits are under a million. I doesn't change the fact that it recieves more... Maybe if they didn't spend all that money ensuring that they can use the notwithstanding clause and prevening english from appearing on their signs...

The money is not used to propogate Bill 101, at least, not in any discernable amount. It's for supplying services. However, it could be argued that Bill 101 did drive some businesses away, although I can't find any real numbers on that, one way or another. At any rate, you have made an unproven assertion. It would be nice if you could back it up.

The size of a province's population does not automatically make it rich or unrich. The larger your population, the more services you must provide.

A question to ponder:

Why do the opposition parties seem so intent on the desire to have an election called before the release of the full Gomery Report?

Could it be that they want to be able to use it as a campaigning weapon with the expectation that the conclusions will include a lack of culpability by Martin and/or (worse yet) some praise for his housecleaning of those presumed responisble upon taking over party leadership?


All the upcoming election really seems destined to prove is that having a larger pool of parties to choose the lesser evil from isn't neccessarily a whole lot more fun that having only two corrupt entities to examine.

Let's look down the candidate list:

Green Party / Marijuana Party etc.
Single-issue parties are a waste of time. While having such groups around helps keep the spotlight on important issues sometimes, their narrow focus of interest precludes them from serious consideration. In point of fact, I would love to see the Greens step away from the trees and go complain to the potheads about their egrigious behaviour chopping down mature pot forests in their prime. The potheads can then smoke 'em a fat one and tell them all about the wonderfull re-forrestation programs they implement to ensure sustainability, and then they can all go hang out at McDonalds to satisfy their munchies.

The NDP:
While social progressive ideals are my preference, Layton's little games to try and force an election without the neccessary non-confidence vote are an adventure in political amateurism. He seems to ahve thought that lending his support earlier this year would give him the opportunity to completely hijack the health care agenda. While the Liberals were willing to talk, Jack wanted it his way or the highway. Well Jack, welcome to the big leagues now. Either step up to the plate or fall by the wayside. He seems destined for the latter. The other truism is that after witnessing NDP governments in action in various provinces, they still can't seem to get past the idea that the only way to solve problems is to keep throwing money at them until they hope they go away. Take Manitoba who put a huge dent in the unemployment figures simply by inventing more new public service jobs than ever before. Sure, the unemployment numbers are down. but then again, supporting that much bloat is an even more onerous burden on the taxpayers. Or take some of the BC governments...... and arrest them for loitering and have them declared fiscally insane.

So, all the real choice boils down to for me are between the Libs and CPC.

The CPC?
Gah..... a bad mix of the religious right and western seperatists headed by someone with even less personality than Martin. How do we judge the decisiona making ability of a party except on by who they think is the premiere example of their ilk? So let's look at their history. Manning? Ugghhh. Ross Perot on nitrous oxide with a whiff of a history of racism to stir the pot. Wetsuit Boy? Mr. "The lord's day of rest precludes me from being PM more than six days out of seven"? And what was that lawsuit all about again? you remember the one.... Harper? The guy gung-ho to go to Iraq, but our troops were too tired to even think about the Sudan? Mr. Suck up to the Bloq to topple the government, but call it traitorous to have the Bloq support the vote on gay marriage? Look Stephen, you don't like gays. Fair enough. But the Bloq simply voted their conscience on that ont and you know it. So, besides geting the government back into the bedrooms of the nation and sucking up to GW, what does he promise us? A balanced budget? Got it. Lowering our taxes while simultaneously encreasing spending to the provinces for health care and education? Having cake plus eating it too? So far Harper's platform seems to consist of one thing: Knee jerk opposition to the Liberals.

Fiscally speaking, Harper's differences from the Liberals is different only in some small degrees on resource allocation. Both want to increase defense. Both want to cut taxes. Both want to adjust transfers. It's a matter of small degrees really.

Both stating fiscal conservative promises (although at least the Libs have a track record to back them up). One socially progressive. On looking to beat me down with King James.


Now don't get me wrong - I don't really LIKE the liberals. I have some disagreements with them on resource allocation too! many of them. But I can't bring myself to vote for the Party of God either.

In that respect it is too bad that Lyin' Brian did such a good job of completely ruining our old mainstream conservative option. People who now scream "Fiberals" must just be too damn young to remember what corruption really looked like. Becuase they WERE a viable alternative before he came along. A little to the right socially, but a good counterbalance of options fiscally. The new Conservative option simply has to pick itself up and move a mile or two towards the center before they will make enough inroads into Ontario and Quebec to ever get a majority mandate.

I hear Westerners scream time and time again that Ontario is just pigheaded about voting Liberal. The old "what will it take!" stuff. You then ask them how to explain Mike Harris' two terms if we are so dead set against any of the ideals of conservatism and they moan and sputter but can't give a suitable answer.


End of day: I can't vote for Jack. He's just not looking to be up to the the job and his party is way too light with people I would deem experienced enough to cover the cabinet portfolios. and I can't vote for Harper. He is the first person ever manage to both scare me and bore me at the same time.


So, Liberals get my X.

They ain't perfect - not by a looooooooooooooooooong shot. But they get the prize for "best of what's left"

yeah about that... funny thing about that graph.. Quebec has 7 Million people; The other provinces recieving benefits are under a million. I doesn't change the fact that it recieves more... Maybe if they didn't spend all that money ensuring that they can use the notwithstanding clause and prevening english from appearing on their signs...
It seems someone is misinformed on the Quebec front. The money we recieve from the federal is in no way used to "prevent english from appearing on their signs".

In fact, nobody stops you from writing in english, or having an english business. We only tell you to write your business signs in french too. You know, so that anyone can understand when they come a-knockin'.

Then if you want it that way, I have one name. Bob Rae. ;)

I'm sorry Stephi, from your wink, I take it you are trying to make a funny. But I just don't get it. Sometimes I'm slow.

Or take some of the BC governments...... and arrest them for loitering and have them declared fiscally insane.


I'm going to be fighting this rhetoric until I die, aren't I? Gordon Campbell's Liberals have flat out lied about the state of BC while it was governed by the NDP. Problem was, people believed them.

http://www.thetyee.ca/Views/2005/05/05/2bcdeficitresized.png

BC swings between the two extremes: right-wing and left-wing. Centerists don't tend to win here, at least provincially. The current Liberals may claim the Liberal name, but they are really mostly former So-Creds wearing new hats, and people who would otherwise be comfortable as part of the Klein Conservatives. The BC Liberal party barely existed before the So-Cred party crashed and burned under VanderScam.

To be frank, BC has, overall, prospered under both types of governments. It's just that the conservative ones hurt the poor and the working class more, while the NDP ones hurt the wealthy more. But at least the NDP don't tear up negotiated and binding contracts. Take your pick.

Yeah I was being sarcastic while also poking at your evil french signs. Jeez.

You want a source?

Minqui Lee, Lecture 3, October 14th 2005, Introduction to Political Science 1000 6.0B, York University, Course Directory: M. Lee.

A comment I read on a blog that I wanted to share:The Liberals are looking increasingly ridiculous in not accepting the Opposition motion. The government is saying that you can't lose a confidence vote and then stay in government until an arbitrary fall date. Except we already have an arbitrary fall date - 30 days after Gomery.* Also, the Opposition is not bringing in a non-confidence vote. They are suggesting that a non-confidence is not necessary if the Liberals move the fall date from March 2nd to January 4th.http://politicalstaples.blogspot.com/2005/11/maybe-jack-was-right.html

He's got a point. What is the difference between the opposition setting a winter fall date, and the government setting a spring fall date? I suspect that the answer has to do with semantics more than anything. When the opposition sets a fall date (per se) it's a loss of confidence in the government. When the governing party does it, it's just election time. Except that this time it is only a year and a half into a 4-5 year mandate. It kinda implies that the government expects to lose confidence in itself.

What do you think?

China3, are you stoned or something?I think he is. And if he's Chinese, then you know... --->:headbang:

BTW if the Conservatives wanted a Christmas election, BRING IT ON THEN. Let their poll ratings drop lower, lower until they're behind the greens.

A question to ponder:
Why do the opposition parties seem so intent on the desire to have an election called before the release of the full Gomery Report?
Could it be that they want to be able to use it as a campaigning weapon with the expectation that the conclusions will include a lack of culpability by Martin and/or (worse yet) some praise for his housecleaning of those presumed responisble upon taking over party leadership?
I completely agree with this assessment. The 2nd half of the Gomery report, as I understand it, will deal with policies and procedures to put in place to ensure another Sponsorship scandal doesn't happen. The Liberal party has already been busily shoring up it's financial policy requirements (although Goodale's sidestepping the Finance Committee to get his sack of pre-election goodies on the table disturbs me.. the one critic had it right, if changes in the budget are to come with advice from the Finance Committee, why was that Committee not consulted in the development of his mini-budget?) so when the second half does come out, the Gomery report then becomes a strength for the current Liberal government.

Let's look down the candidate list:

Green Party / Marijuana Party etc.
Single-issue parties are a waste of time. While having such groups around helps keep the spotlight on important issues sometimes, their narrow focus of interest precludes them from serious consideration. In point of fact, I would love to see the Greens step away from the trees and go complain to the potheads about their egrigious behaviour chopping down mature pot forests in their prime. The potheads can then smoke 'em a fat one and tell them all about the wonderfull re-forrestation programs they implement to ensure sustainability, and then they can all go hang out at McDonalds to satisfy their munchies.
You seem to be speaking from ignorance here.

I would suggest you actually go to http://www.greenparty.ca/ and take a look at their "living platform" in their policies. It's central core is not tree-hugging, it's sustainability -- in all aspects: sustainability of health-care, of education, of finance, of the environment, of electoral conduct and voting, of the penal system, etc.

The NDP:
While social progressive ideals are my preference, Layton's little games to try and force an election without the neccessary non-confidence vote are an adventure in political amateurism. He seems to ahve thought that lending his support earlier this year would give him the opportunity to completely hijack the health care agenda. While the Liberals were willing to talk, Jack wanted it his way or the highway. Well Jack, welcome to the big leagues now. Either step up to the plate or fall by the wayside. He seems destined for the latter. The other truism is that after witnessing NDP governments in action in various provinces, they still can't seem to get past the idea that the only way to solve problems is to keep throwing money at them until they hope they go away. Take Manitoba who put a huge dent in the unemployment figures simply by inventing more new public service jobs than ever before. Sure, the unemployment numbers are down. but then again, supporting that much bloat is an even more onerous burden on the taxpayers. Or take some of the BC governments...... and arrest them for loitering and have them declared fiscally insane.

Have you actually looked at the Manitoba budget? Here, I'll make it easy for you:
http://www.gov.mb.ca/finance/budget05/b_in_b/#08

In a nutshell, they're cutting taxes, maintaining a balanced budget, paying down their debt, and putting savings away for the future.

BC, as has already been pointed out in this thread, was doing just fine. It was simply liberal fear-mongering tactics, as you're continuing to spread here, that kept them down and out.

As for Mr. Layton, he seems to be the only one acting in a mature manner. From what I can see, he wants the government to work his way, of course, but if he can't get that, he at least wants to see reasonable government working. Unfortunately, Mr. Martin has now indicated that the Liberals are not going to be reasonable to anything less than an election call. Yet still Mr. Layton tries to work out a way to respect the wishes of Canadians to not have a winter election. The Liberals want, for campaign reasons, to make this an issue of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The Conservatives are willing to go that route but Mr. Layton is the only one I've seen who's saying "Hey wait, let's see if there's a way we can at least keep the baby."

Unfortunately, it seems the other two parties aren't actually thinking what would be best for Canada anymore, they're simply thinking of what would be best for themselves.

So, all the real choice boils down to for me are between the Libs and CPC.

That's too bad. Maybe if you actually looked at the platforms and the record rather than just believing the CBC/liberal spin you'd have more options.

<snip>

Thanks Waterkeep, I didn't know enough about the current Manitoba government to comment one way or another on this. I appreciate the info there. :)

And I'm glad you took hold of the Green party thing - I was too focused on the NDP description, but you're right, they were definitely mis-characterized in that post.

I know several Green party members, and one Green party candidate. Although they haven't convinced me to vote their way, they have been very adament that the Greens are the new Progressive Conservatives in many ways - fiscally conservative, socially progressive, with a strong interest in the environment.

Does it really matter when they are? The result will be the same, another liberal minority government because Canadians let the liberals get away with everything because to vote anything other then liberal is not Canadian. Hell, the liberals are becoming very similar to the Conservative Party so you would think people who really support the bloody liberals would switch to NDP, I could respect that. I don't respect people who vote liberal just because it is the Canadian thing to do. I may be Conservative but I have alot of respect for Jack Layton, he may not have much power but he knows how to use it. I would rather see a minority NDP government with the Conservatives holding the balance of power then another liberal government. Maybe we can convince Kim Campbell to join the Liberals......

Anything, anything but the Bigotry Party... er, I mean, Conservatives.

A comment I read on a blog that I wanted to share:http://politicalstaples.blogspot.com/2005/11/maybe-jack-was-right.html

He's got a point. What is the difference between the opposition setting a winter fall date, and the government setting a spring fall date? I suspect that the answer has to do with semantics more than anything. When the opposition sets a fall date (per se) it's a loss of confidence in the government. When the governing party does it, it's just election time. Except that this time it is only a year and a half into a 4-5 year mandate. It kinda implies that the government expects to lose confidence in itself.

What do you think?
Perhaps they said they'd call an election after a certian date and they want to stick to it?
The opposition doesn't want to drag them down now because an election would be very unpopular and reflect poorly on the party that makes it a confidence vote. So they're trying to force the liberals to hold an election when they don't want to and well before they planned on doing so... of course they're not going to go along with it. They already said when they'd hold an election and unless they lose a confidence vote, the opposition has no say in when the election will happen.

I looks like My Vote will go to the local Libertarian Canadate in my area this Christmas.

the liberals are becoming very similar to the Conservative PartyThat's very true in BC (BC Fiberals + Federal Conservatives). But at the federal level, they're quite similar fiscally but socially opposite to the "zombie-tories".
a minority NDP government with the Conservatives holding the balance of power then another liberal government.You wish... :rolleyes:

I looks like My Vote will go to the local Libertarian Canadate in my area this Christmas.
Bye-bye vote. Hello Mr. Martin.

Bye-bye vote. Hello Mr. Martin.

Oh, come on. Let the guy vote his conscience.

With the new campaign funding laws, if enough other people do the same, that means funding for his party. That could mean the party could grow in influence. Every party has to start somewhere. Canada is not meant to be a two party system.

And I'm not just saying this because I want to encourage people not to vote Conservative.

a minority NDP government with the Conservatives holding the balance of power then another liberal government.
You wish... :rolleyes:
I'd be willing to give something like that a try.

Oh, come on. Let the guy vote his conscience.

So much for being flip. Hey, he can vote however he wants. I just wanted to poke some fun.

So much for being flip. Hey, he can vote however he wants. I just wanted to poke some fun.

Sorry, it's that text thing. I tend to take people seriously unless there's emoticons or really overt sarcasm.

My bad.

Anything, anything but the Bigotry Party... er, I mean, Conservatives.
Yeah, I pretty much agree. Those guys are Republicans in Canadian's clothing! :D

A comment I read on a blog that I wanted to share:http://politicalstaples.blogspot.com/2005/11/maybe-jack-was-right.html

He's got a point. What is the difference between the opposition setting a winter fall date, and the government setting a spring fall date? I suspect that the answer has to do with semantics more than anything. When the opposition sets a fall date (per se) it's a loss of confidence in the government. When the governing party does it, it's just election time. Except that this time it is only a year and a half into a 4-5 year mandate. It kinda implies that the government expects to lose confidence in itself.

What do you think?


I think that the issue of corruption has been raised, and that the promise to have the vote AFTER the release of the Gomery report makes a lot of sense. The idealized foundation of a democracy is, after all, the notion of an informed electorate. And what other really significant new contentious business is before the house right now?

In other words, if there IS no difference, then the flipside is true as well. What does it hurt to wait the extra couple of months?

I'd be willing to accept that there is little difference between going to the polls now versus a couple of months later on one condition: The other parties refain from mentioning Gomery or alluding to it in any way shape or form throughout the campaign given that the report is not out yet.

However you know damn well that they will milk that baby for all it;s worth....

Eighteen months ago the Liberals said they could not give more money to health care or cut taxes. Miraculously two days ago they announced that they will be giving tax cuts (that won't take effect for a year despite their use of the word immediately) and that more funding for health care will be coming. Looks like they're flip-flopping again. Oh those crazy flip-flopping Liberals. I think I heard the idea of money for health care and tax cuts before. Hmmmm - oh yeah it was the Conservatives. How can one re-elect a government that will not stick to their guns even though their guns are full of lies to begin with. Let's get rid of this corrupt government once and for all. We need a majority Conservative government!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We need a majority Conservative government!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh no we don't.

Elect a majority conservative, and I guarantee Québec goes poof in the next four years. So much for Canadian unity.

A coalition between the Liberals and the NDP seems to be the only realistic option that also has a chance to keep our country whole. With the Bloc as official opposition(hopefully).

Oh no we don't.

Elect a majority conservative, and I guarantee Québec goes poof in the next four years. So much for Canadian unity.

A coalition between the Liberals and the NDP seems to be the only realistic option that also has a chance to keep our country whole. With the Bloc as official opposition(hopefully).

As a federalist, having the Bloc as the official opposition really sticks in my craw. I'd rather the Conservatives.

Please have your elections now, so that you can return to your normally scheduled US bashing that we're so used to.

And now, in retaliation for all the Canadians who have felt compelled to give Americans political advice on who to vote for, and what to do with Bush, I suggest that you all go vote for this party:

http://www.libertarian.ca/

Since this thread started, I went to http://home.ican.net/~alexng/can.html

and visited quite a few political party websites. The one I posted seems to be the most reasonable to me.

Then again, I'm not Canadian.

I suggest that you all go vote for this party:

http://www.libertarian.ca/

Hmm. Here's a few frightening bons mots from the afore-mentioned site:

Social Concerns
Government interference in current social concerns such as pollution, consumer protection, health care delivery, and poverty exceeds the level required for the protection of individual rights.

Then again, Deep Kimchi isn't Canadian.

Oh no we don't.

Elect a majority conservative, and I guarantee Québec goes poof in the next four years. So much for Canadian unity.

A coalition between the Liberals and the NDP seems to be the only realistic option that also has a chance to keep our country whole. With the Bloc as official opposition(hopefully).
Further scaremongering. The Quebecrs are pissed off with the Liberals anyway over trying to buy their allegiance. And if they want to go I say good riddance. I'm sick of their whining already. If a referendum does come up we've got to pass a law saying it's the final one. There also has to be a rerferndum for the rest of Canada asking if we will offer Sovereignty Association. I hope everyone votes no. And Quebecers have to be told that they ain't getting all of Quebec. The natives who own the majority of Quebec's north don't want to separate.
Bloc official opposition! DOH! They are traitors to the nation!!!!!!!!!!!!

Further scaremongering. The Quebecrs are pissed off with the Liberals anyway over trying to buy their allegiance. And if they want to go I say good riddance. I'm sick of their whining already. If a referendum does come up we've got to pass a law saying it's the final one. There also has to be a rerferndum for the rest of Canada asking if we will offer Sovereignty Association. I hope everyone votes no. And Quebecers have to be told that they ain't getting all of Quebec. The natives who own the majority of Quebec's north don't want to separate.
Bloc official opposition! DOH! They are traitors to the nation!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'll tell you, I could be persuaded to leave with Quebec if we get another Tory would-be lapdog bunch of Bushevik thugs in office, a la Brian Mulroney & pals.

I'll tell you, I could be persuaded to leave with Quebec if we get another Tory would-be lapdog bunch of Bushevik thugs in office, a la Brian Mulroney & pals.
Judging from what I've read so far about Canadian elections, a Tory victory is about as likely as my winning the lottery.

Judging from what I've read so far about Canadian elections, a Tory victory is about as likely as my winning the lottery.

It's not impossible. About a third of Canadians are likely to vote Tory, and most of them have a burning desire to see the Libs voted out of office. It's pretty much guaranteed that a lot of them will make out to the polls, no matter when the election is held. The Liberal vote is a lot softer - anywhere between 30 and 40% of the pop will vote Liberal, but there are many who are a lot less likely to show up at the polls if they think the Libs will win anyway. (the "my vote doesn't matter, only Ontario counts" syndrome) Soft NDP voters tend to stampede to the Liberal vote if they think the Conservatives will win, but less so if they think the Liberals will win.

A lot of it teeter-totters on the polls - if polls show the Conservatives in the lead, more Liberal voters come out, and more soft NDPers vote Liberal. If polls show Liberals in the lead, some Liberal voters just stay home, and more soft NDPers vote NDP.

Fickle yet apathetic bunch, aren't we?

Fickle yet apathetic bunch, aren't we?
Yes, but we know how to pass time during the long cold winter nights:

Watching politicians freeze their asses off glad-handing would-be voters!

It's not impossible. About a third of Canadians are likely to vote Tory, and most of them have a burning desire to see the Libs voted out of office. It's pretty much guaranteed that a lot of them will make out to the polls, no matter when the election is held. The Liberal vote is a lot softer - anywhere between 30 and 40% of the pop will vote Liberal, but there are many who are a lot less likely to show up at the polls if they think the Libs will win anyway. (the "my vote doesn't matter, only Ontario counts" syndrome) Soft NDP voters tend to stampede to the Liberal vote if they think the Conservatives will win, but less so if they think the Liberals will win.

A lot of it teeter-totters on the polls - if polls show the Conservatives in the lead, more Liberal voters come out, and more soft NDPers vote Liberal. If polls show Liberals in the lead, some Liberal voters just stay home, and more soft NDPers vote NDP.

Fickle yet apathetic bunch, aren't we?


So, if the Tories win because Dobbsworld votes NDP, you'll blame him for the Tory win?

Eighteen months ago the Liberals said they could not give more money to health care or cut taxes. Miraculously two days ago they announced that they will be giving tax cuts (that won't take effect for a year despite their use of the word immediately) and that more funding for health care will be coming. Looks like they're flip-flopping again. Oh those crazy flip-flopping Liberals. I think I heard the idea of money for health care and tax cuts before. Hmmmm - oh yeah it was the Conservatives. How can one re-elect a government that will not stick to their guns even though their guns are full of lies to begin with. Let's get rid of this corrupt government once and for all. We need a majority Conservative government!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Now, you might believe that the economics of our country haven't changed in a year and half, but some of us actually notice the changes.

Like, ohhh, say the fact that our dollar has risen over 15% in value during that time.

Or that unemployemnt has also dropped nearly half a percent over that period.

And that a few potential big-ticket items were also dealt with such as the issue of Newfoundland's deal regarding resource revenue, and the Billion dollar bailout to cattle farmers due to the loss of trade thanks to that one mad cow.

Or maybe you would actually try telling the truth about what was said instead of totally misrepresenting it. for example 18 months ago some provinces were asking for health care money to put into plans that acutally increased the level of privatization in the industry which was a contentious item.

Oh yes, and last year's budget DID contain tax cuts - enough so that Harper was quite pleased with it (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050223.woppo0223_2/BNStory/specialBudget2005/) - all of your BS to the contrary


Flip-flopping huh?

Sheesh, are Conservatives up here so fuking lame that all they can do is steal labels from recently passed US elections?

So, if the Tories win because Dobbsworld votes NDP, you'll blame him for the Tory win?

Hell no. I'll vote NDP too. I hate strategic voting. I prefer to vote my conscience.

If the Tories manage to pull off a win it's not as though they'll actually be able to keep the top job. They have no hope of anything beyond a minority parliament, and they have no natural coalition partner. They'll fall pretty quickly, the first time they manage to piss off the Bloc.

Hell no. I'll vote NDP too. I hate strategic voting. I prefer to vote my conscience.

If the Tories manage to pull off a win it's not as though they'll actually be able to keep the top job. They have no hope of anything beyond a minority parliament, and they have no natural coalition partner. They'll fall pretty quickly, the first time they manage to piss off the Bloc.

That's the advantage of having more than two viable parties.

Judging from what I've read so far about Canadian elections, a Tory victory is about as likely as my winning the lottery.


Actually - If the conservative party WAS the old Tory party, I think they'd win in a landslide.

The new party that first called itself the Canadian Reform Alliance Party, however, truly does live up to that acronym.

And the right can thank Lyin' Brian for flushing a viable alternative away....

Sheesh, are Conservatives up here so fuking lame that all they can do is steal labels from recently passed US elections?
You called it.

Flip-flopping huh?

Sheesh, are Conservatives up here so fuking lame that all they can do is steal labels from recently passed US elections?

Plator keeps ignoring the fact that the Conservatives supported the first budget after the 2004 election, but when the NDP didn't like it thought they had the support to bring down the house. So they withdrew their support, which gave the NDP the opening to negotiate the "NDP budget" instead.

That's flip-flopping if anything is.

However, flip-flopping is a stupid complaint - of course political parties are going to maneuver for position. They're politicians, it's what they do. Furthermore, grown adults are expected to change positions on things when circumstances change or more information is gathered. That's not "flip-flopping", that's "adaptibility to change". Smart people do that.

(Yes, I know I posted essentially the same information before, I just keep hoping Plator will actually read it.)

Actually - If the conservative party WAS the old Tory party, I think they'd win in a landslide.

The new party that first called itself the Canadian Reform Alliance Party, however, truly does live up to that acronym.

And the right can thank Lyin' Brian for flushing a viable alternative away....
Yup. The old Progressive Conservatives relied heavily on the votes of the traditional 'Red Tories' that Harper and friends have turned up their noses at.

Bad politics to forego your actual constituency in pursuit of some unattainable Holy Grail of would-be social conservativism in Canada.

That's the advantage of having more than two viable parties.

That and an opposition's right to lose confidence in the government, bring down the house (if they can muster the votes), and force a new election.

Although at the moment it's being used for political maneuvering, theoretically it could be used to stop really bad decisions on the part of the party in power.

A weak analogy is that it's like the US President's veto, only in this case, it would be like Congress vetoing the President. (Can they do that?) The main difference, of course, is that Congress can't force a new election.

A weak analogy is that it's like the US President's veto, only in this case, it would be like Congress vetoing the President.
Thank God and our constitution that our PM can't veto.

Thank God and our constitution that our PM can't veto.

You're not getting religious on me, are you Dobbs?

Thank God and our Constitution that vetoes can be overridden.

You're not getting religious on me, are you Dobbs?

Thank God and our Constitution that vetoes can be overridden.
Think of it more as an off-the-cuff turn of phrase.

Although I am deeply spiritual, I'm not a subscriber to any pre-packaged ecumenical sensibility.

Although I am deeply spiritual, I'm not a subscriber to any pre-packaged ecumenical sensibility.

What about the pre-packaged kind that comes in a six-pack?

What about the pre-packaged kind that comes in a six-pack?

Drunken ecumenical sensibility? That's the best kind. There's nothing like waxing philosophical while tipsy.

What about the pre-packaged kind that comes in a six-pack?
Best left for midnight masses, I'd expect.

As a federalist, having the Bloc as the official opposition really sticks in my craw. I'd rather the Conservatives.

The Bloc can actually have a positive impact for all of Canada.

If the fed govt would decentralize a little, you'd see Québec mellow it's separatist tendencies. And you'd make provinces like Alberta and British Columbia quite happy with the deal as well. The Bloc pushes for decentralization as much as for Québec independance.

Even though I am mildly against independance and vote NDP, I would rather see the Bloc as official opposition.

The Bloc can actually have a positive impact for all of Canada.

If the fed govt would decentralize a little, you'd see Québec mellow it's separatist tendencies. And you'd make provinces like Alberta and British Columbia quite happy with the deal as well. The Bloc pushes for decentralization as much as for Québec independance.

Even though I am mildly against independance and vote NDP, I would rather see the Bloc as official opposition.

As a BCer, I would prefer to see the federal government less de-centralized with less power in the hands of the provincial governments.

As a BCer, I would prefer to see the federal government less de-centralized with less power in the hands of the provincial governments.
:eek:

You actually want Ottawa to decide everything all over the damn country?


Like they have any idea what's going on in Québec, Newfoundland and/or Nunavut. :rolleyes: And BC, or so I thought.

:eek:

You actually want Ottawa to decide everything all over the damn country?


Like they have any idea what's going on in Québec, Newfoundland and/or Nunavut. :rolleyes: And BC, or so I thought.

Not quite. But I do believe, for example, that healthcare and education standardized across the country would be a good step in the right direction. The provinces and territories would still be involved, and there might still be province specific solutions for some things.

At the moment, we have 13 different healthcare plans, all trying to pull Ottawa in 13 different directions. I don't know if you noticed, but not a lot gets done.

In education, different things are taught in different years across the country. Kids moving from one province to another are ahead in some things and behind in others. Some provinces score well internationally, others suck (comparitively). Yes, you need to have special provincial history and social studies courses, for example, but why are the kids paying for our provincialism?

And all these stupid trade rules between provinces! We have freer trade with the US (despite all of the problems) than we do between any two provinces. How is that supposed to help any of us?

There are plenty of good reasons for more centralization - as long as we don't lose input from the people on the ground. And the people on the ground includes more people than just the ones in the provincial governments.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but we do vote for the MPs in Ottawa. They are supposed to represent their constiuencies. Every province would continue to have their voice heard.

Who cares when the election is? It is up to the government. True, a christmas election isn't the best time to have it, but who cares? If there is a need to have an election, let's have it. However, it's not an emergency, so it doesn't matter if it goes till spring. The nice thing about a christmas election is that there'll be something else on tv instead of christmas ads. Too bad they have to be as annoying as election ads. and billboards all over the place. especially since here in BC, we are going through a municipal election, and there are already election placards and billboards all over the place, polluting the landscape. I wish we could have elections in a better way. Restrict the ad material legally allowed to be placed out, and disallow slam campaigns.

:eek:

You actually want Ottawa to decide everything all over the damn country?.
Oh sure, give them more control, if anything, they ought to have less!

There are plenty of good reasons for more centralization - as long as we don't lose input from the people on the ground. And the people on the ground includes more people than just the ones in the provincial governments.
Unfortunately, from what I've seen of federal politics, it's more about them having the power and deciding what's good for everybody else than them consulting everyone and trying to work something out. I'm just that disillusionned by the federal government.

More centralization means a government even further removed from the people, and that's something I've had enough with already.

Although I grant that there are some positive arguments for centralization, I believe that the negative effects (fiscal imbalance, federal getting its nose in provincial matters, possibilities of "assimilation to a great Canadian Collective" in education, etc.) just outweight the benefits.


Maybe you haven't noticed, but we do vote for the MPs in Ottawa. They are supposed to represent their constiuencies. Every province would continue to have their voice heard.
Like the official government gives a shit about provincial parties(like the Bloc) or regional concerns. :rolleyes: No matter who governs, Newfoundland isn't going to have lots of friendly ears towards their provincial identity. Neither will any other province.

Oh sure, give them more control, if anything, they ought to have less!

Hey, it's not me wanting them to have more control. I'm against it.

The zombie party went down again:

Liberals 33% unch
Conservatives 26% -4 Muahahahahaha!!! *evil laugh *
NDP 22% +4 GO NDP!!!
Bloc Quebecois 13% dunno

The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 per cent, 19 times out of 20

Source: http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=b255ccac-4b8c-485d-b05c-5b08cbfa1520

I'll be keeping with the Liberals this time around. I would be surprised if Jack Layton could govern his way out of a wet paper bag, and I know that he's not expecting to win. If they steal some seats from the Tories, all well and good, but the NDP is not ready to lead. Not succesfully, anyway.

The zombie party went down again:

Liberals 33% unch
Conservatives 26% -4 Muahahahahaha!!! *evil laugh *
NDP 22% +4 GO NDP!!!
Bloc Quebecois 13% dunno

The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 per cent, 19 times out of 20

Source: http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=b255ccac-4b8c-485d-b05c-5b08cbfa1520

Dunno about that one CR. It's hard to get excited about one poll, especially since that article did not include the poll questions or breakdown.

I mean, I wish, but I don't believe.

Your third sentence in your second paragraph does not correspond together, Dobbsworld. First you are calling upon the peoples of Canada not to vote for the Prime Minister.[/QUOTE]

Semantics, grammar, and similar syntax based arguments are'nt really interesting.

... and bring in a majority Conservative party. Let's start the new year off with a fresh start.[/QUOTE]

Perish the thought, maybe I should go liberal...damn.

Do you have a problem with my ability to formulate coherent thoguth and answers?

Well nice to see that conheret thinkers can splle. :D

Have you guys seen: http://www.democraticspace.com/blog/ ?

He predicts seat counts based on polls. It's kinda cool. He also has some pretty awesome commentary.

Have you guys seen: http://www.democraticspace.com/blog/ ?

He predicts seat counts based on polls. It's kinda cool. He also has some pretty awesome commentary.This web site is pretty intense, he even did an analysis for each and every riding.:eek:

BTW a friendly reminder for Transcendental Waldens: USE THE EDIT FEATURE!!!

That's very true in BC (BC Fiberals + Federal Conservatives). But at the federal level, they're quite similar fiscally but socially opposite to the "zombie-tories".
You wish... :rolleyes:

Yea, I do wish. Anything is better then the Liberals, except for the Bloc.

But of course, Canadians will always support the liberals. Even if they start to build death camps to kill all right wingers. But who am I to judge......Canadians have a right to keep getting fucked up the ass by the Liberals.

Yea, I do wish. Anything is better then the Liberals, except for the Bloc.

But of course, Canadians will always support the liberals. Even if they start to build death camps to kill all right wingers. But who am I to judge......Canadians have a right to keep getting fucked up the ass by the Liberals.
The Bloc's better than the libs.

I'll vote Bloc before I vote Liberal, and I'll bend over and beg a Liberal to fuck my ass before I vote conservative.

Gotta love democracy :D

Edit: I'm really a NDP man though.

Hi,
I'm a Neo-Quebecers ( or Quebecers-haitians ). So my english is probably bad !

want a Election in winter.
1- I don't understand why english canadians "act" like the "Adscam" don't exist, that's a Quebecer's probleme....
But come on, you pay that, it's YOUR money... 250Millions in "Commandites" and 1BILLIONS in Ads !!!!!!! ( Newspaper ads, radio ads, tv ads ).... All that for 2 things:
1- Brainswach Quebecers.... And they keep going... Michaelle Jean... ( her sister is Souverainist by the way !!! ... )
2- Fund their party !
The pay us ( the canada ) 1.14millions. The Tories say they stole 40millions.
But if it's really 1.14millions. Can i steal 1.14millions and if i get caught, I regive the money to the person. I will be "clear" ? No prison ? No prob?


And YES the Bloc Québecois is a problème for Canada, Winnig a majority gouvernement will be hard for canada.

But understand us... We don't have a "voice" throw the world... We are not in the "Mondialisation" Canada is there for us... Canada speak for us in ONU... in the "Zone of Free-trade america"...

Nobody know about us.... I'm not on the world map... Canada is there for us...

So OUR only voice is Provincial and Federal.... So the Bloc is there, to watch the gouvernement ( like the Adscam... Without the Bloc, No adscam ! )

Canada will be better without quebec and we will have to control our future. I'm agree to accept this resposability. We could lost 6Billions per year, with a bugdet of at least ( whitout the 6billions or let go for 10 lol for tttrue federaliste ) 70Billions. We could survive with that !!! We could cut in something, we have a too big gouvernement lol ( I'm a bit right-wing )
+ 10 Billions more for Canada !

And in Quebec, for 30yr ! we have JUST 2 gouvernement.... A federalist gouverment ( center-right look-like ) and a Souverainiste gouvernement ( Center-left look, but Lucien Bouchard was the most right gouvernement that we have )
So we the souveraineté, we will have no more that debate !!!
A TRUE PARTY WILL RAISE ( LEFT OR RIGHT OR CENTER OR ANYTHING ) !!!! NO MORE REFERENDUM !!!! A VOICE IN THE WORLD !!! A ARMY !!!! ( A DEFENCE ARMY, We hate war !! ) WE COULD SAY YES TO KYOTO WITHOUT PROBLEME !!!!! WE COULD SAY NO TO IRAK WITHOUT PROBLEME !!!! AND ALL THE FUTURE PROBLEME THAT HAPPEN IN THAT CRUEL WORLD, WE WILL BE ABLE TO SAY WHAT WE WANT !!!!!

AND THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR CANADIANS AND QUEBEC !!!!!

A FINAL HOCKEY GAME AT THE OLYMPIC !!!!
CANADA vs QUEBEC :eek: :eek: :eek: :D :D :D :D :eek: :eek: lol

Sorry for the capital letters
And i dont hate canadians !!! And the english in quebec, we will need them !
And the indians need more right... Like be able to go in Olympic with their flag, be able to be a country.. They deserve more that they have now...
And french had great relationship with indians before, but many with one "gang" lol.... We team-ups with a other "gang" and fight with them. Now they dont like us very much... But i can understand, there are in "ghetto"-like...

So Quebec and Canada will be better separate for me.....
If we stay like that, Liberals will Allllllllllllllways win.... That call dictures friend !

Good bye ( Maybe im un-understandable lol, sorry ! )

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.













.This guy makes Pepe Lepieu seem like a credible portrayal of a francophone. I call bullshit on this.

Quebec Seperation is not the subject at hand that is being discussed. We are discussing the possible threat of an election during the Christmas Holidays, who should the blame be put on? The Opposition or the Liberal Party? I have an easy, simple answer for you; the opposition.

Prime Minister Paul Martin has expressed multiple times to the press that'll call an election within thirty days after the release of the second report of Justice Gomery. Now the opposition on the other side is pressing for an election before hand? Why? Is there something more incriminalating against the other major political actors on Parliament Hill? Most likely.

I am disguisted of the oppositions shit. I want a Spring Election and a majority of Canadians express the same. This will damage the popularity of the Conservatives, the Bloc and finally the NDP.

Now, you might believe that the economics of our country haven't changed in a year and half, but some of us actually notice the changes.

Like, ohhh, say the fact that our dollar has risen over 15% in value during that time.

Or that unemployemnt has also dropped nearly half a percent over that period.

And that a few potential big-ticket items were also dealt with such as the issue of Newfoundland's deal regarding resource revenue, and the Billion dollar bailout to cattle farmers due to the loss of trade thanks to that one mad cow.

Or maybe you would actually try telling the truth about what was said instead of totally misrepresenting it. for example 18 months ago some provinces were asking for health care money to put into plans that acutally increased the level of privatization in the industry which was a contentious item.

Oh yes, and last year's budget DID contain tax cuts - enough so that Harper was quite pleased with it (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050223.woppo0223_2/BNStory/specialBudget2005/) - all of your BS to the contrary


Flip-flopping huh?

Sheesh, are Conservatives up here so fuking lame that all they can do is steal labels from recently passed US elections?
The Liberals had a surplus then and they do now. They just chose to "suggest (i.e. - colourfuly lie)" that they didn't 18 months ago. :mad:

As a BCer, I would prefer to see the federal government less de-centralized with less power in the hands of the provincial governments.
I've been saying that for years!!!!!!!!!!!! Get rid of all provincial and territorial governments and then we can only have government to bitch at!!! It's less aggravation. :p

The Liberals had a surplus then and they do now. They just chose to "suggest (i.e. - colourfuly lie)" that they didn't 18 months ago. :mad:

Sorry, but you've failed to present support for the notion that the Liberals refuised to make tax cuts and program spending a priority 18 months ago, especially given that was exactly what they DID with the budget - in conjunction with their other stated aim of reducing the federal debt.

Hell, Alberta keeps telling us that Conservatives are so damn smart and use the elimination of Alberta's debt as their proof. then, as the liberals are trying to pay down the debt what do they whine about? "Oh no! Don't do that! spend it and give it all back instead!!!" So how does that ever erase the debt if you never pay it down? Make up your damn minds already - is eliminating the debt a good thing or a bad thing?



But hey... what was Harper's plan for what to do with a big chunk of the surplus again?

Oh yeah, I remember!

Buy two aircraft carriers!!!!!!



Yah baby, yah!!!! THAT'S the top priority for most Canadians.

:rolleyes:

But hey... what was Harper's plan for what to do with a big chunk of the surplus again?

Oh yeah, I remember!

Buy two aircraft carriers!!!!!!



Yah baby, yah!!!! THAT'S the top priority for most Canadians.

:rolleyes:


*squeals of joy*

Oh boy! Aircraft carriers! Just what I've always wanted!

Yea, I do wish. Anything is better then the Liberals, except for the Bloc.

But of course, Canadians will always support the liberals. Even if they start to build death camps to kill all right wingers. But who am I to judge......Canadians have a right to keep getting fucked up the ass by the Liberals.

Wow. Death camps.

You really don't think very highly of your fellow Canadians.

Sorry, but you've failed to present support for the notion that the Liberals refuised to make tax cuts and program spending a priority 18 months ago, especially given that was exactly what they DID with the budget - in conjunction with their other stated aim of reducing the federal debt.

Hell, Alberta keeps telling us that Conservatives are so damn smart and use the elimination of Alberta's debt as their proof. then, as the liberals are trying to pay down the debt what do they whine about? "Oh no! Don't do that! spend it and give it all back instead!!!" So how does that ever erase the debt if you never pay it down? Make up your damn minds already - is eliminating the debt a good thing or a bad thing?

But hey... what was Harper's plan for what to do with a big chunk of the surplus again?

Oh yeah, I remember!

Buy two aircraft carriers!!!!!!

Yah baby, yah!!!! THAT'S the top priority for most Canadians.

:rolleyes:

WTF?

And I thought Duceppe was smoking major dope...

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Yes. A brand new nation with a name involving "tabarnak" - they may as well have named their nation "fuckis".

I've been saying that for years!!!!!!!!!!!! Get rid of all provincial and territorial governments and then we can only have government to bitch at!!! It's less aggravation. :p

No, that's not what I mean. We'd still require a provincial and territorial level governments. Sorry.

WTF?

And I thought Duceppe was smoking major dope...


Yep, Harper stated an intent to beef up the Canadian military to purchase a pair of assault carriers such as the US Marines use. And, of course, he only ever discussed it in terms of the costs of the carriers themselves....

Gee, well let's think what else needs to go with those boats.... like a support squadron, carrier-versions of planes (forget our current CF-18s - hello Harriers!), new copters, probably a fleet of those hovercraft to carry the assault groups ashore with their tanks to get maximum use out of this new transport group, carrier-based AWACS to provide proper security...... and - given the problems with those used Brit subs, maybe need to revisit THAT appropriation to provide undersea security too!

Shit, do we even have a military dockyard anymoer big enough for those suckers when it come to maintainence?

And how many more servicemen to make two viable fleets?

Now then.... about that surplus....

Well all I can say is I've learned a lot by reading other people's threads but they won't swing my vote. I knew that there would eventually be a spring election which means that I have to register again because I have moved (I hate that), also I hate my ridings elected official. I'm in a bit of a delima. I'm NDP when it comes to a provincial government (I'm in ontario) and oh god really federally as long as it's not conservative...I'd rather have a liberal government than an NDP one though because I don't really think that the party is strong enouht to carry the country. We have had some good conservative governments in the past. I'd love to see a good liberal one work. But in the end I"m voting NDP. Sound crazy? :rolleyes:
Amy, keeper of the paranoid cats
PS the fist thing I learned was the election in the winter after the WW whoever that one came from thanks for my one thing learned for the day :)

Yep, Harper stated an intent to beef up the Canadian military to purchase a pair of assault carriers such as the US Marines use. And, of course, he only ever discussed it in terms of the costs of the carriers themselves....

Gee, well let's think what else needs to go with those boats.... like a support squadron, carrier-versions of planes (forget our current CF-18s - hello Harriers!), new copters, probably a fleet of those hovercraft to carry the assault groups ashore with their tanks to get maximum use out of this new transport group, carrier-based AWACS to provide proper security...... and - given the problems with those used Brit subs, maybe need to revisit THAT appropriation to provide undersea security too!

Shit, do we even have a military dockyard anymoer big enough for those suckers when it come to maintainence?

And how many more servicemen to make two viable fleets?

Now then.... about that surplus....


I still don't understand why Canada needed submarines. Or anything more than a coastal navy.

Who is going to attack Canada anyway?

Canada could reduce its armed forces to zero, and hand over coastal maritime patrol duties to your equivalent of the Coast Guard.

You don't even need peacekeepers, unless you want to feel good sending some at the UN's behest.

Yep, Harper stated an intent to beef up the Canadian military to purchase a pair of assault carriers such as the US Marines use. And, of course, he only ever discussed it in terms of the costs of the carriers themselves....

Gee, well let's think what else needs to go with those boats.... like a support squadron, carrier-versions of planes (forget our current CF-18s - hello Harriers!), new copters, probably a fleet of those hovercraft to carry the assault groups ashore with their tanks to get maximum use out of this new transport group, carrier-based AWACS to provide proper security...... and - given the problems with those used Brit subs, maybe need to revisit THAT appropriation to provide undersea security too!

Shit, do we even have a military dockyard anymoer big enough for those suckers when it come to maintainence?

And how many more servicemen to make two viable fleets?

Now then.... about that surplus....

Not to mention that maintenance of an aircraft carrier is in the neighbourhood of $1,000,000 a day (according to my roommate, who is my personal Jane's Military Review resource).

According to a budget analysis by the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives, the Conservative budget was the least fiscally responsible of the big three budgets. The Lib budget was best, in that it had the largest surplus (pretty much same old, same old for spending), the NDP budget was next best - it had more social (and some military) spending, but still maintained a surplus to put against the national debt, and the Conservatives were worst - their budget had increased spending AND tax cuts that threatened to put us back into deficit territory (their estimate of what the surplus would be for 2004/2005 if nothing changed was in the 12 billion range, and they spent accordingly).

I've got the CCPA's 2004 budget and tax analyses for the Libs, Cons, and NDP saved as PDFs on my desktop. If you want to see them, send me a TM with your email, and I'll send them to you.

I still don't understand why Canada needed submarines. Or anything more than a coastal navy.

Who is going to attack Canada anyway?

Canada could reduce its armed forces to zero, and hand over coastal maritime patrol duties to your equivalent of the Coast Guard.

You don't even need peacekeepers, unless you want to feel good sending some at the UN's behest.

Most Canadians are very proud of our peacekeeping traditions. We'll never have a military with the size and funding of the US, even on a per capita basis, but we will continue recruiting and training excellent soldiers. We feel we are making a difference in places like Afghanistan.

I still don't understand why Canada needed submarines. Or anything more than a coastal navy.

Who is going to attack Canada anyway?

Canada could reduce its armed forces to zero, and hand over coastal maritime patrol duties to your equivalent of the Coast Guard.

You don't even need peacekeepers, unless you want to feel good sending some at the UN's behest.

In the early 1900s an obscure Austrian diplomat was assassinated by a Serbian terrorist organization. In response Sarajevo was shelled. The result was the Great War.

Things have a way of escalating ... Canada probably won't be on anyone's 'attack screen' ... yet that does not mean it could not be dragged into another conflict of similar magnitude to the Great and Second World Wars.

If you want peace prepare for war. This is a truth.

Most Canadians are very proud of our peacekeeping traditions. We'll never have a military with the size and funding of the US, even on a per capita basis, but we will continue recruiting and training excellent soldiers. We feel we are making a difference in places like Afghanistan.

Peacekeeping is one of the many duties of a soldier. It is not the duty.

Canadians should be proud of their soldier/war traditions. This country was borne out of battles like Vimy. Peacekeeping is a fuzzy word, and is anything but - see the Medak Pocket.

Prime Minister Paul Martin has expressed multiple times to the press that'll call an election within thirty days after the release of the second report of Justice Gomery. Now the opposition on the other side is pressing for an election before hand? Why?
Simple:

Martin wants an election a little later so he gets an opportunity for damage control regarding Gomery's report.

The opposition wants to deny him this opportunity, so they're pushing for an earlier election.

Yes. A brand new nation with a name involving "tabarnak" - they may as well have named their nation "fuckis".
Give him a little slack. He's obviously trying to blend in. :p

Simple:

Martin wants an election a little later so he gets an opportunity for damage control regarding Gomery's report.

The opposition wants to deny him this opportunity, so they're pushing for an earlier election.
No, the oppostion can't wait to get its hands in the cookie jar!

Most Canadians are very proud of our peacekeeping traditions. We'll never have a military with the size and funding of the US, even on a per capita basis, but we will continue recruiting and training excellent soldiers. We feel we are making a difference in places like Afghanistan.

Then again, combat carriers are of little use in peacekeeping.

They're more, you know, of a "blast your enemies into smithereens" kind of vehicle, really. :rolleyes:


We gotta protect ourselves against all those evil evil muslims who keeps running planes into our buildings and suicide-bombing our soldiers occupying their countries! They're out to get us!!!!!

No, the oppostion can't wait to get its hands in the cookie jar!
And this is bad because?

Seriously. The lib's been having both hands in the jar for 4 mandates now. I can't blame the opposition for wanting more than a couple of crumbs.

(Note: I'm talking about seats in parliament and a chance at governing the nation, not public funds, of course. Although it would seem the libs have been fishing with both hands in the public funds as well, but that's another story.)

Then again, combat carriers are of little use in peacekeeping.

They're more, you know, of a "blast your enemies into smithereens" kind of vehicle, really. :rolleyes:


We gotta protect ourselves against all those evil evil muslims who keeps running planes into our buildings and suicide-bombing our soldiers occupying their countries! They're out to get us!!!!!



Who said anything about combat carriers? In fact, what is a combat carrier? If you mean aircraft carrier, their peacetime use was shown to be quite effective following the asian tsunami last year. Guess who was the first to respond with aid and assistance, the U.S. because they could move their "combat carriers" into position fast enough to deploy the sort of humanitarian aid that you mistakenly think that Canada doles out all over the world. Canada couldn't get its act together for weeks trying to figure out first what to do, then how to do it because we have no ability to transport the meagre responders we do send when and if we ever act.

Then again, combat carriers are of little use in peacekeeping.

They're more, you know, of a "blast your enemies into smithereens" kind of vehicle, really. :rolleyes:


We gotta protect ourselves against all those evil evil muslims who keeps running planes into our buildings and suicide-bombing our soldiers occupying their countries! They're out to get us!!!!!


The "assault" carriers that the US Marines use are radically different from the typical US Navy carrier. They are optimized for the deployment of a Marine Expeditionary Unit to a remote location on short notice.

However, as was pointed out, a Marine Expeditionary Unit is composed of more ships than the assault carrier alone - and the carrier has some attack aircraft and helicopters. There are other assault ships that usually accompany this sort of ship - especially escorts and ships that carry amphibious assault vehicles.

While the US has reorganized its Marine and Naval units to support this sort of expeditionary activity (to arrive, say, at the tsunami area quickly, or off the coast of Liberia quickly), it's damn expensive. And it's more than buying a few carriers - it implies a lot of other ships, aircraft, personnel, and logistics.

And this is bad because?

Seriously. The lib's been having both hands in the jar for 4 mandates now. I can't blame the opposition for wanting more than a couple of crumbs.

(Note: I'm talking about seats in parliament and a chance at governing the nation, not public funds, of course. Although it would seem the libs have been fishing with both hands in the public funds as well, but that's another story.)
No, it's not a bad thing. I'm just calling it like I see it...

Peacekeeping is one of the many duties of a soldier. It is not the duty.

Canadians should be proud of their soldier/war traditions. This country was borne out of battles like Vimy. Peacekeeping is a fuzzy word, and is anything but - see the Medak Pocket.

You might have noticed I was responding to a post that said we didn't need peacekeepers. I was simply pointing out that we wouldn't give up on peacekeeping anytime soon.

Simple:

Martin wants an election a little later so he gets an opportunity for damage control regarding Gomery's report.

The opposition wants to deny him this opportunity, so they're pushing for an earlier election.

From what I have read in the latest report, there was nothing damaging to the Liberal Party, nor the Liberal Government. The Opposition is just taking this opportunity to fuck Canadians over.

You might have noticed I was responding to a post that said we didn't need peacekeepers. I was simply pointing out that we wouldn't give up on peacekeeping anytime soon.

My post was just indicating that Canadian peacekeepers are a "want", not a "need".

Canada would survive without them, but if you're going to spend money on "nice to haves", it's a good expenditure.

Carriers, submarines, etc., are a pile of useless money-sucking metal for Canada.

My post was just indicating that Canadian peacekeepers are a "want", not a "need".

Canada would survive without them, but if you're going to spend money on "nice to haves", it's a good expenditure.<snip>

Fair enough, I stand corrected. :)

Simple:

Martin wants an election a little later so he gets an opportunity for damage control regarding Gomery's report.

The opposition wants to deny him this opportunity, so they're pushing for an earlier election.

As opposed to those that want an election BEFORE the report is even made available so that they can exploit the attack politics of wild supposition?

Carriers, submarines, etc., are a pile of useless money-sucking metal for Canada.

Well, actually the subs at least serve the purpose of being able to project naval force throughout the arctic regions year-round - which has certainly become a point of contention in some cases of border disputes up there. We either need subs or an upgraded military icebreaking fleet if we want to be able to perform even rudimentary coast guard duties up there - which is becoming more of an issue as so much natural resource exploration moves northward for gold, diamonds, fishing, oil etc.

Frankly, though, I'd have rather they invested in better icebreaking to allow us to keep the season for surface shipping lanes open longer.

Well, actually the subs at least serve the purpose of being able to project naval force throughout the arctic regions year-round - which has certainly become a point of contention in some cases of border disputes up there. We either need subs or an upgraded military icebreaking fleet if we want to be able to perform even rudimentary coast guard duties up there - which is becoming more of an issue as so much natural resource exploration moves northward for gold, diamonds, fishing, oil etc.

Frankly, though, I'd have rather they invested in better icebreaking to allow us to keep the season for surface shipping lanes open longer.

Diesel subs are useless under the ice pack.

Diesel subs are useless under the ice pack.

Point taken. Doh!

I dunno... maybe it was just a case of King Jean looking south and having severe cigar-envy a few years back... lol.

*snip*I thought that guy gonna say:

VIVE LA QUEBEC!!!
lol

Wow. Death camps.

You really don't think very highly of your fellow Canadians.

I have no reason to, they hate the US because it is the popular thing to do. They hate the military because the US likes the military. They hate conservatives because the US is run by conservatives. I have no reason to think highly of people that act like children.

Yep, Harper stated an intent to beef up the Canadian military to purchase a pair of assault carriers such as the US Marines use. And, of course, he only ever discussed it in terms of the costs of the carriers themselves....

Gee, well let's think what else needs to go with those boats.... like a support squadron, carrier-versions of planes (forget our current CF-18s - hello Harriers!), new copters, probably a fleet of those hovercraft to carry the assault groups ashore with their tanks to get maximum use out of this new transport group, carrier-based AWACS to provide proper security...... and - given the problems with those used Brit subs, maybe need to revisit THAT appropriation to provide undersea security too!

Shit, do we even have a military dockyard anymoer big enough for those suckers when it come to maintainence?

And how many more servicemen to make two viable fleets?

Now then.... about that surplus....

They said after World War One that no nation would need a large military anymore.....then 1939 rolled around. People nowadays seem to easily forget history, or just don't seem to care about it.

I have no reason to, they hate the US because it is the popular thing to do. They hate the military because the US likes the military. They hate conservatives because the US is run by conservatives. I have no reason to think highly of people that act like children.

Hey, you're the one who suggested death camps as a valid political act. I wouldn't call other people children as a result.

If you had read the last part of this thread, you would find a lot of Canadians voicing pride in our military, past and present. No one in this thread had bashed Americans, and I think you'll find that if US-bashing occurs among Canadians, it's generally aimed at it's government and it's representatives, not Americans in general.

And I think you'll find that 60% of Canadians just don't like social conservatism. It's been that way for longer than you've no doubt been alive - a dislike of social conservatism has been around since the 60's. Harry Truman or JFK could be in office in the US, and Canadians would still dislike social conservatism. The root of it has nothing to do with the politics of the US government, although I agree that we get along better with more liberal US governments.

Look, you may be bitter about the Liberal government, many people are. The people I voted for certainly aren't running the show. But I don't claim that future Conservative governments plan to march me and my kind into a death camp. They may take away the rights of some of my friends to marry; they may make it more difficult for women to access abortion; they may slash social spending so that they can cut taxes; they may try to destroy universal healthcare; some of them may try to turn off the taps to non-white immigration; and some of them may try to make the Christian religion pre-eminent -- but I only accuse Conservatives of things that are either in their party platform, or have been publicly mentioned by their membership. I don't make stupid analogies to Hitler.

EDIT: Please, please ignore the troll who posted immediately after this post. He's just trying to stir up animosity. Let's try to stay on topic. Thank you.

Quebec Seperation is not the subject at hand that is being discussed. We are discussing the possible threat of an election during the Christmas Holidays, who should the blame be put on? The Opposition or the Liberal Party? I have an easy, simple answer for you; the opposition.

Prime Minister Paul Martin has expressed multiple times to the press that'll call an election within thirty days after the release of the second report of Justice Gomery. Now the opposition on the other side is pressing for an election before hand? Why? Is there something more incriminalating against the other major political actors on Parliament Hill? Most likely.

I am disguisted of the oppositions shit. I want a Spring Election and a majority of Canadians express the same. This will damage the popularity of the Conservatives, the Bloc and finally the NDP.



Ok, Maybe you didn't fallow the Gomery Commission.
Commissionner Gomery ( Not judge, because, it's can not "Judge" that's why he didn't tell which Deputee reseves "bad cash" and name active member of liberals gouverment member and NOTHIN in Gomery commission can be show in a "court house".... )
So Gomery, during 1fulll yr ( In quebec, french tv show allllllll the report ! And on CPAC you could see it !!! ) seen alll the depute ( Paul martin, Jean Chretien, Denis Coderre, Lucienne Robillard, Gagliano and other ) And all the "Fonctionnaires" and private organisation ( Benoit corbeil ( Who prove that Canada stole the last referendum... by the way ), Jean Breault, M. Lafleure and his wife and more )
So The 1st report of the commission "tell" who is to blame ( Without name actives liberal member of the house.... ).

The 2nd Report tell what to do, for that never happen again...............




Do you really need to know, what not to do for that never happen again, Before the election?????...

Seriously, the 2nd report will not talk about the adscam, it will talk about future and he will suggest laws.

So why wait????

English-Canadien look-like : " Ooooh The Adscam is nothing, we need to brainswach this people who want to "destroy" our contry..."
That's insulting.... And you encourage corruption by voting liberal.... And brainswaching

I believe in a strong, united Canada. Do I think that the Liberal Sponsorship Scandal to a degree was illegal? Yes. The members excluding Chretien that were directly involved with it, have been expelled and banned from the Liberal Party for the rest of their lives. Do I believe that the Liberal Government shouldn't of taken the money from the taxpayer? No, it was unfair. However, I do realize the reasoning behind the entire Quebec Sponsorship. It was to promote a Canada with Quebec.

Quebec holds a grave importance to the continuation of our great country here.

Diesel subs are useless under the ice pack.
The subs might be okay if they bought new ones. Buying used ones, as we did, is like buying a used condom. It's wet both inside and out!!!!:p

*SNIPS*
. If this guy's from Quebec, I'm from Disneyworld.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

From what I have read in the latest report, there was nothing damaging to the Liberal Party, nor the Liberal Government. The Opposition is just taking this opportunity to fuck Canadians over.

Nothing damaging to the Liberal party? Are you sure we read the same report?:eek:

Some high-ranking Libs comtrolled everything. While Gomery exonerated Martin of any responsibility, I still believe that as a finance minister he should have seen all that money flowing and asked some questions.

I trust Gomery when he says Martin wasn't part of it, but I hold him responsible for not noticing something so big going on. He may not be a crook(unlike those bastards responsible, who are gonna get away with a tap on their fingers and not much else), but he is guilty of negligence in my eyes.

As opposed to those that want an election BEFORE the report is even made available so that they can exploit the attack politics of wild supposition?
The opposition wants an election AFTER the final report. Just not 2 months after. While the campaign may start before Gomery hands out the final report, the voting will take place after, so that's pretty much a non-issue for me.

I thought that guy gonna say:

VIVE LA QUEBEC!!!
lol

Actually, it's more like
"Vive le Québec libre!"

Quebec holds a grave importance to the continuation of our great country here.

Thank you. I've been hearing a lot of "Why are we bothering trying to keep you with us, you're st00pid and you stink and you're ecomony will sux0rs a$$" lately.

Truth be told, the rest of Canada wouldn't bother trying to convince us to stay if there wasn't something in it for them. It's just nice hearing someone saying we should stay because we're important instead of "we should stay because we're too weak and stupid and irresponsible to make it on our own".

Venez au Québec et les drogues de fumée avec Duceppe

Venez au Québec et les drogues de fumée avec Duceppe
Correction:
Venez au Québec et fumez de la drogue avec Duceppe.
(Come to Quebec and smoke drugs with Duceppe)

Question: Why is Duceppe associated with drugs anyway?

Correction:
Venez au Québec et fumez de la drogueavec Duceppe.
(Come to Quebec and smoke drugs with Duceppe)

Question: Why is Duceppe associated with drugs anyway?

Once you get an independent Quebec, he wants to raise an international fighting force complete with an air force and long range transports and tanks so that Quebec can intervene in places like the Sudan at a moment's notice.

Once you get an independent Quebec, he wants to raise an international fighting force complete with an air force and long range transports and tanks so that Quebec can intervene in places like the Sudan at a moment's notice.
From what I've heard, all he said is that an independant Québec would have an army. Which, you know, is kinda necessary, even if you don't have a large army, you need some kind of fighting force in case of emergency.

Do you have sources for those battalions of tanks, air force and transports?

And if so, it's not unreasonable to think we could have a small albeit well-maintained military. Scandinavian countries with population and economies similar to Québec's have military forces; they're just not superpowers on the international level is all.

Besides, it's not like Canada's a military superpower to begin with.