NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a thread where you can post election signs/posters/ads (any size, I don't mind large posters, logos, whatever), debate on certain issues, news item, rally, and much more. :)

Here's mine:






http://www.ndp.ca/ndp-drupal/files/NDP_eng_3-col.jpg
Elect
Nathan CULLEN for Skeena-Bulkley Valley √

Not to knock your idea, Chinese Republics, but don't we already have a 34 page election thread - plus a number of smaller ones? It's hard to keep up with them all!

Not to knock your idea, Chinese Republics, but don't we already have a 34 page election thread - plus a number of smaller ones? It's hard to keep up with them all!
But Equus - this is the 'Official' one! Did you not see the 'Official' qualifier in the thread title?

http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Lib-can1.gif

Nuff Said!

But Equus - this is the 'Official' one! Did you not see the 'Official' qualifier in the thread title?

Well, I admit I'm enjoying the Canadian takeover of NS General lately, but I don't know if I can keep up the pace.

But Equus - this is the 'Official' one! Did you not see the 'Official' qualifier in the thread title?LOL, he's right Equus. Abandon the other threads and stick with this. :D

LOL, he's right Equus. Abandon the other threads and stick with this. :D

But I like being a rebel! :P

But I like being a rebel! :P

Even if you're wrong, which is your right.

Vote smart!

http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Lib-can1.gif

Well, I admit I'm enjoying the Canadian takeover of NS General lately, but I don't know if I can keep up the pace.
I know I can't. I think Dobbsworld (could have been you) posted an article, that I intended to read, in one of them, but I am unable to find it in all the Canada threads.

Even if you're wrong, which is your right.

Vote smart!

http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Lib-can1.gif
The NDP sign pwned yours :D :D :D

http://www.ndp.ca/ndp-drupal/files/NDP_eng_3-col.jpg

I know I can't. I think Dobbsworld (could have been you) posted an article, that I intended to read, in one of them, but I am unable to find it in all the Canada threads.

Was it the Macleans article on Layton? If so, I can post the link here, if you want.

I know I can't. I think Dobbsworld (could have been you) posted an article, that I intended to read, in one of them, but I am unable to find it in all the Canada threads.That's why I created this thread. ;)

BTW, this is the OFFICIAL thread. :D

The NDP sign pwned yours :D :D :D

http://www.ndp.ca/ndp-drupal/files/NDP_eng_3-col.jpg

BE SMART.

The ONLY Choice.

http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Lib-can1.gif

Seem smart!

BALONEY CHOICE

Okay, now it's just getting silly.

Was it the Macleans article on Layton? If so, I can post the link here, if you want.
Yes it was. (A good article if anyone will be arsed to read it.--the post that came with it.)

Yes it was. (A good article if anyone will be arsed to read it.--the post that came with it.)

Well, here it is again, by request:

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/article.jsp?content=20051205_116830_116830

BE SMART.

The ONLY Choice.

http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Lib-can1.gif
No, that is the fifth choice. The best choice is...
http://www.marxists.org/catala/enciclopedia/people/p/posi.gif
w00t! Posi for the PMO!

BRING BACK PRESTON MANNING!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9e/Reform.jpg

I LOVE THAT WORD REFORRRRMMMM!


Oh.....I'm so sad.....

BRING BACK PRESTON MANNING!no...

BRING BACK PRESTON MANNING!

Seconded.

BE SMART.

The ONLY Choice.

http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Lib-can1.gif

There is no single choice. This is just a standard, insulting, Liberal tactic. It is possible to be a Canadian, and be smart, and choose to vote Conservative, NDP, Green or miscellaneous.

Canada would be much better off if Liberal voters took the time to consider what it is exactly they are supporting.

Of course, it's much easier to be an ignorant Liberal voter. "Hey, I vote Liberal, I always vote Liberal, everyone should vote Liberal, support the Liberals, because Liberals should receive your vote, so vote Liberal like me." Pathetic.

BRING BACK PRESTON MANNING!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9e/Reform.jpg
I LOVE THAT WORD REFORRRRMMMM!


Oh.....I'm so sad.....

I'd support that. I probably wouldn't vote for it, but I'd support it.

I'm good with splitting the right again for one thing, and I had sympathy for Reform's populist movement.

No, that is the fifth choice. The best choice is...
http://www.marxists.org/catala/enciclopedia/people/p/posi.gif
w00t! Posi for the PMO!
Well they're the only ones I've seen so far without a stupid leaf in their logo. I'd vote them, whatever they're for.

I'd support that. I probably wouldn't vote for it, but I'd support it.

I'm good with splitting the right again for one thing, and I had sympathy for Reform's populist movement.hmm... on the other hand, resurrecting the Reform/CA and the PC is a good idea. :D

hmm... on the other hand, resurrecting the Reform/CA and the PC is a good idea. :D

I have always loved the idea of splitting the left. Call one party the Corruption Party the other the Scandal Party.

I have always loved the idea of splitting the left. Call one party the Corruption Party the other the Scandal Party.But we already got two lefty parties: The Liberals and the NDP, except the Liberals are kinda lefties and they win every election ever since.

But we already got two lefty parties: The Liberals and the NDP, except the Liberals are kinda lefties and they win every election ever since.

I didn't count the NDP, I have seen no evidence that they are corrupt.....yet.

Well they're the only ones I've seen so far without a stupid leaf in their logo. I'd vote them, whatever they're for.
We are for fortifying the national water supply with prozac.

The NDP makes me barf. And their logo gives me a headache. ;)

I didn't count the NDP, I have seen no evidence that they are corrupt.....yet.

And they don't count as left wing if they're not corrupt? I like it!

And they don't count as left wing if they're not corrupt? I like it!

My idea was really for splitting the Liberal Party, I should have been more clear.

I didn't count the NDP, I have seen no evidence that they are corrupt.....yet.OK, let's split the Liberal and Conservative party and install a clean NDP government so we don't have to hear any corruption BS ever again. And since you ripped your tory membership because of Harper, you should vote:

http://www.ndp.ca/ndp-drupal/files/NDP_eng_3-col.jpg

Sounds good? :D

Stop posting that fscking logo! :mad: At least size it down or something.

The NDP makes me barf. And their logo gives me a headache. ;)Vote:

http://www.ndp.ca/ndp-drupal/files/NDP_eng_3-col.jpg

to relieve headache symptoms. :D

OK, let's split the Liberal and Conservative party and install a clean NDP government so we don't have to hear any corruption BS ever again. And since you ripped your tory membership because of Harper, you should vote:

http://www.ndp.ca/ndp-drupal/files/NDP_eng_3-col.jpg

Sounds good? :D

I didn't rip it up, I just didn't pay to extend my membership. I got them to stop calling when I said I don't support Stephen Harper.

"I'm sorry, I no longer support Stephen Harper"
"Oh.......that explains alot"
"Yep, so call me back when Peter MacKay becomes leader and I will take a look at rejoining"

I changed some of the wording, due to memory, but that was how the conversation went.

Stop posting that fscking logo! :mad: At least size it down or something.LOL, where's the "C" logo?

The NDP makes me barf. And their logo gives me a headache. ;)

Also: Jack Layton is creepy.

Also: Jack Layton is creepy.
I think you watched too much commercials than focus on today's news...

http://vimages.videoprofessor.com/vpTwo/neoimages/VPHome-logo.gif
http://vimages.videoprofessor.com/vpTwo/neoimages/jws_home-flash.jpg

And no, Jack is not creepy, the one and only creepy politician in Canada is Harper.

*never talks to Chinese Republics again* :p

Well, the reason there's no C logo is that I'm not an obnoxious socialist. ;) OOOH BURN. heh...

I think you watched too much of this guy...

http://vimages.videoprofessor.com/vpTwo/neoimages/VPHome-logo.gif
http://vimages.videoprofessor.com/vpTwo/neoimages/jws_home-flash.jpg

Holy . . . Freeking . . . crap

And no, Jack is not creepy, the one and only creepy politician in Canada is Harper.

No no! Harper isn't creepy. He might have policies that certain people don't like, but he himself isn't creepy. The same goes for Paul Martin. The guy might be the leader of a band of robbers, but he still looks and acts like a pretty normal human being. There's nothing particularily creepy about either of them.

Jack Layton, on the other hand, is creepy. I don't even know what it is about him that creeps me out. Maybe its the big bald head or the twerpy moustache. I don't know, but there's something about him. And it's not just my personal abject loathing of the NDP that makes me dislike him either. Lorne Calvert is leader of the Saskatchewan NDP and is butt ugly to boot, but I don't find him creepy.

Well, the reason there's no C logo is that I'm not an obnoxious socialist. ;) OOOH BURN. heh...

http://www.belinda.ca/images/just-c.gif

Communist Party
of Canada?

Jack Layton, on the other hand, is creepy. I don't even know what it is about him that creeps me out. Maybe its the big bald head or the twerpy moustache. I don't know, but there's something about him. And it's not just my personal abject loathing of the NDP that makes me dislike him either. Lorne Calvert is leader of the Saskatchewan NDP and is butt ugly to boot, but I don't find him creepy.

This is the only time I will ever say this in public. I prefer to insult based on policies rather than appearance, but since we're on the subject of creepy looks, well, honestly, Harper looks like an undead to me. Not a zombie, just...there's nothing there. And I don't react like that to other Conservatives. I thought Preston Manning was sometimes funny looking (you know, geeky), but not creepy. And Stockwell Day, well, I thought some of his beliefs were over-the-top, but I didn't think he was creepy or geeky at all.

But Harper? The man could be an emotionless vampire or something.

not voting...unless its for these.

http://www.marijuanaparty.org/images/paul_martin_must_legalize.gif

http://www.marijuanaparty.org/index.en.php3

There is no single choice. This is just a standard, insulting, Liberal tactic. It is possible to be a Canadian, and be smart, and choose to vote Conservative, NDP, Green or miscellaneous.

Canada would be much better off if Liberal voters took the time to consider what it is exactly they are supporting.

Of course, it's much easier to be an ignorant Liberal voter. "Hey, I vote Liberal, I always vote Liberal, everyone should vote Liberal, support the Liberals, because Liberals should receive your vote, so vote Liberal like me." Pathetic.
It's ironic that you call someone 'pathetic' for making the standard cliched joke about their party being 'the only choice', given that you've then decided to take it seriously and fly into a rant about Liberals.

It's ironic that you call someone 'pathetic' for making the standard cliched joke about their party being 'the only choice', given that you've then decided to take it seriously and fly into a rant about Liberals.
This Liberal claim is not a "standard cliched joke"; it's one of their primary election messages. They say that only they can defeat the second party, and that votes for the 3rd, 4th or Xth party are "wasted" votes. Of course, if enough people stuck to their guns and voted NDP, for instance, the NDP on its own could defeat Conservatives. Instead of that happening, people vote Liberal, which gives more seats to Conservatives, fewer to the NDP and other parties, and the country ends up with endless Liberal governments.

On the "pathetic" note, I distinguish between the party that presents this message and the people who believe it and repeat it. The former is clever & manipulative; I've already made my thoughts clear on the latter.

There is no single choice. This is just a standard, insulting, Liberal tactic. It is possible to be a Canadian, and be smart, and choose to vote Conservative, NDP, Green or miscellaneous.

Canada would be much better off if Liberal voters took the time to consider what it is exactly they are supporting.

Of course, it's much easier to be an ignorant Liberal voter. "Hey, I vote Liberal, I always vote Liberal, everyone should vote Liberal, support the Liberals, because Liberals should receive your vote, so vote Liberal like me." Pathetic.
It's ironic that you call someone 'pathetic' for making the standard cliched joke about their party being 'the only choice', given that you've then decided to take it seriously and fly into a rant about Liberals.
He may have gone off on a bit of a rant, but you are missing his point. ALL voters would be better off examining the people, platforms, and policies of the parties before making a choice, not just following blind ideologies.

Equus - While I agree with you, I would hope that you've been around these forums long enough to know I make it my business to be informed and I'm not one to follow any thing blindly.

Equus - While I agree with you, I would hope that you've been around these forums long enough to know I make it my business to be informed and I'm not one to follow any thing blindly.
I have generally seen that, yes. But your comments on the NDP really make me wonder whether you have chosen to follow any of the links to see the analysis of the LPC, CPC, and NDP party platforms. By all means, vote Liberal if that is what you believe in - what I hope for is that you will take the time to look at those things and realize that some of the things that you have been saying about the party I have come to support are myths.

And just in case you missed it the last time I posted it, here's the link to the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives analysis of the LPC, CPC, and NDP budget platforms called "Can they Pay for what they Say?"

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/index.cfm?act=news&call=593&do=article&pA=BB736455

The quote that CanuckHeaven found interesting was this:The results? Based [on] the specific assumption made to create this projection, the federal government has about $78 billion in spending room between 2004/05 and 2008/09.

And what do the various party platforms cost over the same time period? Conservatives:$89.4 billion. Liberals: $53.8 billion, New Democratic Party: $63.4 billion.

The Liberals and the New Democratic Party are able to balance the books over the next five years and post a considerable surplus. That may not be big news for the Liberals, who have been sitting on surpluses for many years now. [But] The NDP ends up posting a larger surplus than they themselves forecast. So both the Liberals and the NDP have some margin for error and unexpected events.

However, by our calculations the Conservatives' platform promises would produce a cumulative deficit of $11.4 billion during this time period.

And to be absolutely clear, Stephistan: I'm not telling you to vote for the NDP if your heart and head are for the Libs. I'm just asking you to stop spreading the damaging myths. Just look into the studies. That's all I'm asking. Yes, the NDP are willing to spend more than the Libs. But they still want to pay down the national debt (albeit somewhat slower), and they definitely don't want to put us into deficit spending again. The NDP know that Canadians want (and won't accept anything but) a fiscally responsible government, and that keeping the economy strong is important. That's why they're recruiting economists like Paul Summerville onto the team.

My position on JAcko has been well documented. I thought his namby-pamby way of trying to topple the government via the braindead idea of a "vote of future non-confidence" coupled with his complete inability to then stand by his position and pull the trigger on the vote himself disqualified him as being a strong enough leader to run my country.

But boy oh boy did Stevie wthe Wonder Wuss just add his name to that list!

Let alone his desire to reopen the same sex marriage issue, he also can't stand by his principles.

Constitutionally, he will need to use the notwithstanding clause to re-opent he debate. He will do this because he honestly believes gay marriage is wrong. And he promises a free vote in the hopes of overturning it.

BUT he also promises to preserve the thousands of such legal unions that have been made in the interim period should he successfully overturn the law.


Stevie boy - either gay marriage is an evil thing that shall drag our society assunder or it isn't. And if it IS - as you profess, then if made illegal it should be illegal. Period.

Or is there some critical mass of gay marriages before which mine will fail to suffer from it's proximity? We'll survive with 3000 happy gay couples who have papers but not 10,000?

Shit - can you imagine the crap that this would cause Revenue Canada to manage the Official List of Valid Gay Marriages for purposes of taxation?


Way to show your backbone and willingness to stand up for your beliefs Stevie! Cross YOUR name off the "courage of convictions" list too!

My position on JAcko has been well documented. I thought his namby-pamby way of trying to topple the government via the braindead idea of a "vote of future non-confidence" coupled with his complete inability to then stand by his position and pull the trigger on the vote himself disqualified him as being a strong enough leader to run my country.

This is also more or less my position too. As for demonizing your opponent, welcome to politics, it's the name of the game. Or would Equus suggest that Layton isn't trying the exact same thing on Martin? Martin is not dirty. How many times do people need to be told or showed this before they get it. So if Harper and Layton want to play dirty, don't expect us who truly believe in the Liberals not to fight back. If Equus expects me to stop demonizing Layton unfairly, perhaps Equus should contact Jack Layton and ask him to do the same thing when it comes to Martin.

I also lost any respect for Layton that I might of had based on what Silli has said here too. I'm sure we are not the only two Canadians who feel this way.

This is also more or less my position too. As for demonizing your opponent, welcome to politics, it's the name of the game. Or would Equus suggest that Layton isn't trying the exact same thing on Martin? Martin is not dirty. How many times do people need to be told or showed this before they get it. So if Harper and Layton want to play dirty, don't expect us who truly believe in the Liberals not to fight back. If Equus expects me to stop demonizing Layton unfairly, perhaps Equus should contact Jack Layton and ask him to do the same thing when it comes to Martin.

I also lost any respect for Layton that I might of had based on what Silli has said here too. I'm sure we are not the only two Canadians who feel this way.

No Stephistan. Layton and you are not on the same level, you and I are. In case you haven't noticed, I've neither demonized the Liberals nor Paul Martin. I do not spread myths about them. I point out the things that I think they've done right, I point out the places where I think they fell down, and then I explain why I support another party. I've even responded to people's questions about where I think the NDP could improve, as I certainly don't think they are perfect. All I'm asking is for you to show a similar level of respect for the discussion.

Harper, Layton, Martin, and Duceppe are necessarily going to be maneuvering for political position. Neither I nor you are going to influence how political campaigns are run any time in the near future. What we can do though, is have open and honest debate between each other, focussing on facts and honest beliefs, rather than demonization and myths. I really feel we don't need to sink to a 'swift-boat' level of political debate.

Harper, Layton, Martin, and Duceppe are necessarily going to be maneuvering for political position. Neither I nor you are going to influence how political campaigns are run any time in the near future.


Heh, actually speak for yourself. I live in Ottawa, this won't be the first, or the last campaign that will have my finger prints on it. Just think of me as a Liberal surrogate. And yes, I am on the same level as the people I give my time to and for.

I don't mind an honest debate. As long as it's honest. I have no reason to believe that you're not authentic in what you believe, and no I have never seen you bash Martin that I can think of. But this is politics, we don't win because we all do the happy dance together.

This is an important election. We are standing at the cliff of a possible Conservative minority. You'll have to excuse me if I do whatever it takes to make sure that doesn't happen (within the law of course).

http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Lib-can1.gif

Heh, actually speak for yourself. I live in Ottawa, this won't be the first, or the last campaign that will have my finger prints on it. Just think of me as a Liberal surrogate. And yes, I am on the same level as the people I give my time to and for.

I don't mind an honest debate. As long as it's honest. I have no reason to believe that you're not authentic in what you believe, and no I have never seen you bash Martin that I can think of. But this is politics, we don't win because we all do the happy dance together.

This is an important election. We are standing at the cliff of a possible Conservative minority. You'll have to excuse me if I do whatever it takes to make sure that doesn't happen (within the law of course).

Wow Steph, I'm really surprised at you. I've always had respect for your apparent honesty and the research that backs up your statements. And now I find that you're willing to do the dirty because "that's politics". I'm sorry, but I just don't understand that kind of attitude. I guess I can only hope that you are on someone's campaign staff or something, although frankly, that really doesn't make me feel any better about it when you're not disclosing that fact when you're posting around here.

After all, I'm a member of a party too, but I don't feel that gives me the right to spread defamation and lies. I've even told people to knock off baiting the Conservatives in some of these threads, in hopes of keeping the discussion on a civil level.

How do we create a better Canada if we're not listening to each other? How do we create a better Canada if we knowingly spread misinformation?

This is an important election. We are standing at the cliff of a possible Conservative minority. You'll have to excuse me if I do whatever it takes to make sure that doesn't happen (within the law of course).
Ah. I suppose you'll have no problems if I reply to each of your messages with my current sig, then.

OOC: NDP Party Member

To answer your question Equus, it is because the Liberals have nothing left. They are only interested in staying in power and the only way they can do that is to spread myths and lies about the other parties. If they had done anything in their 12 years in office they wouldn't have to create myths, and lies.

However, they have nothing to run on.

MAKE RALPH KLIEN LEADER OF THE CONSERVATIVES . I'D VOTE FOR HIM

OOC: NDP Party Member

To answer your question Equus, it is because the Liberals have nothing left. They are only interested in staying in power and the only way they can do that is to spread myths and lies about the other parties. If they had done anything in their 12 years in office they wouldn't have to create myths, and lies.

However, they have nothing to run on.
For fucks sake. Equus, the poster you are responding to, just bitched about that kind of shit (to put it nicely). The Liberals have plenty to run on: surpluses, staying out of Iraq, legalizing SSM, tax breaks. Besides, if we know you are going to avoid the truth to make your opponants look bad, how do we know you aren't avoiding the truth to make your side look good?

OOC: NDP Party Member

To answer your question Equus, it is because the Liberals have nothing left. They are only interested in staying in power and the only way they can do that is to spread myths and lies about the other parties. If they had done anything in their 12 years in office they wouldn't have to create myths, and lies.

However, they have nothing to run on.

That's the thing - they do have things to run. I know that I'm a bit of an idealist, and I hate negative campaigns with a passion, so that colours my perceptions, but Silliopolis (I think it was him) has done a very good job in various threads highlighting the good things the Liberals have done. And there are many things they did right.

Economy is strong
They finally got the US to buckle a bit on softwood
Lowest unemployment rate in 30 years
Canada rated as one of the best places to live
Stayed out of Iraq (regardless of why the decision was made)
Stayed out of missile defense (again, regardless of why decision was made)
Got rid of the deficit
Paying down the debt

Anyway, I'm not going to write their campaign for them, I just want to show that the Liberals have indeed accomplished good things in their time in power, and they do have positive things to run on.

(I'm not much of a politician am I?)

For fucks sake. Equus, the poster you are responding to, just bitched about that kind of shit (to put it nicely). The Liberals have plenty to run on: surpluses, staying out of Iraq, legalizing SSM, tax breaks. Besides, if we know you are going to avoid the truth to make your opponants look bad, how do we know you aren't avoiding the truth to make your side look good?
Thank you, Posi.

Thank you, Posi.
Twas no problem. Praise form Equus! Fuck Yeah!

I also lost any respect for Layton that I might of had based on what Silli has said here too. I'm sure we are not the only two Canadians who feel this way.
I think you've repeatedly made it abundantly clear that you never had any respect for Layton to begin with. I'm frankly quite disappointed with you, Steph. I never made you for a cheerleader before.

So whaddaya know.

The Six Types of Canadian Voters:
1. Ideological No consideration other than I am a [fill in the blank] and I will always vote [fill in the blank]. They will turn black into white if they have to but everything their party does is golden.

2. Policy wonks They will create big tables that compare the party platforms on an issue by issue basis and arrive at decision based on which party provides the best policy match with their own beliefs. (Often accountants, engineers, economics or assorted other self-described geeks)

3. Dinner party preference They will form their opinion of which party to vote for based on the expressed opinions of influencers like friends, co-workers, priests etc.

4. Strategic voters Will vote for the people most likely to defeat the people they hate the most ( an odd but persistent tradition as you’ll see later).

5. Candidate supporters They vote primarily for an candidate with less weight going to policy or party affiliation.

6. Irrational rejection Rejection of an alternative based on stereotypes.

Thanks to Odd Thoughts. http://www.oddthoughts.ca/

Oh, and I guess I'm basically a policy wonk, with a hint of dinner party preference.

Policy wonk with shades of strategic voting (but not this time, bay-beee!). You should start a new thread/poll with this one, Equus.

Is it just a coincidence that I am a policy wonk and planning to be an engineer?

Policy wonk with shades of strategic voting (but not this time, bay-beee!). You should start a new thread/poll with this one, Equus.

Yeah, I guess this isn't really just a Canadian thing, is it? I'll do that.

During this campaign, the mudslinging will be intense. The issues and debates will be hot, the tempers flaring, ideologies clashing.

Know whenever. Wherever. From your home, from your laptop, on your cell phone or BlackBerry. Decision Canada: 2006 is on 24/7 with insight and neutral, unbiased analysis of the day's campaigning and coverage of Canada's 39th election from start to finish. Can anybody else match it? We didn't think so.

Decision Canada 2006 by Pacitalia.

http://spaces.msn.com/members/bluefox670/ - blog and analysis.
http://kfox.gamehorizons.net - visual updates (daily).

[/plug] :p

Unless something goes terribly wrong in any of the party election campaigns Canada will probably see a minority liberal government supported by the social-democratic NDP. Considering Canada has made spectacular progress in the past with left of centre minority governments, I'm not the least bit worried that the liberals won't have majority.

Here's a more reliable election forcast: :)

http://www.democraticspace.com/blog/

Election forcast by province and each and every riding:

http://www.democraticspace.com/canada/2005election/2005election.shtml

Here's a more reliable election forcast: :)

http://www.democraticspace.com/blog/

Election forcast by province and each and every riding:

http://www.democraticspace.com/canada/2005election/2005election.shtml

Are you calling mine unreliable just because I'm a conservative? :p You'll notice on my day 1 post that I'm working with friends of mine that support the NDP and the Liberals just to ensure I don't accidentally go wonk. This democraticSPACE guy gives the NDP way too much, IMO. They're going to do better but not by THAT much.

Actually democraticSPACE election forcast was based on polls from Ipsos-Reid, Decima, Strategic Counsel, EKOS, etc...

Look at BC, it's like a swing province. http://www.democraticspace.com/canada/2005election/bc.shtml

Actually democraticSPACE election forcast was based on polls from Ipsos-Reid, Decima, Strategic Counsel, EKOS, etc...

...and what exactly makes you think I'm not referring to polls in order to back up my estimates?

...and what exactly makes you think I'm not referring to polls in order to back up my estimates?I didn't see any credible sources. Unless you give me an alternate link to the visual.

To destroy your own country, vote:

http://www.belinda.ca/images/just-c.gif

:D :D :D

I didn't see any credible sources. Unless you give me an alternate link to the visual.

The visual is my creation, 100%. I did all the work on that, not the pollsters. If you want me to start quoting polls, I will, but rest assured, this is not just my opinion on how the election will turn out.

Here's a more reliable election forcast: :)

http://www.democraticspace.com/blog/

Election forcast by province and each and every riding:

http://www.democraticspace.com/canada/2005election/2005election.shtml
I could read what all the experts have to say...but I wont....because I already know what is going to happen...

here is my prediction...the upcoming elections will prove that Canadians don't give a shit about corruption.

Mark my words.
...
Its going to be a carbon copy of last election...(except in Quebec...where the Liberals will lose a noticeable amount of seats)

For all your polling and forecasting needs.


http://www.nodice.ca/elections/canada/polls.php

The visual is my creation, 100%. I did all the work on that, not the pollsters. If you want me to start quoting polls, I will, but rest assured, this is not just my opinion on how the election will turn out.LOL, I went to the Ipsos web site and the poll results are almost exactly the same as your visual. Except Ipsos gave the greens 5% instead of 6%.

Genius. :D

For all your polling and forecasting needs.


http://www.nodice.ca/elections/canada/polls.php
WHAT! Liberals are leading in BC!?!

http://www.nodice.ca/elections/canada/polls-western.php

Look at BC, it's like a swing province. http://www.democraticspace.com/canada/2005election/bc.shtml
Why couldn't more provinces be like us?

Cause they don't have Gordo as premier.

The Next Prime Minister of Canada...
http://www.ndp.ca/ndp-drupal/files/redtiesm.jpg
Prime Minister Jack Layton



I'm with The Chinese Republics on this one, Go NDP

The Next Prime Minister of Canada...
http://www.ndp.ca/ndp-drupal/files/redtiesm.jpg
Prime Minister Jack Layton

Or you could actually be logical and realistic... ;)

Thats logical and realistic :D

The Next Prime Minister of Canada...
Prime Minister Jack Layton
a long shot...but not impossible actually.

a long shot...but not impossible actually.

A Bloc minority and 65 seats for the NDP is more realistic than an NDP government. Face it, lefties, he's a statesman but he's never going to make it. ;)

The Next Prime Minister of Canada...
http://www.ndp.ca/ndp-drupal/files/redtiesm.jpg
Prime Minister Jack Layton
Dream on... dream on...

Wow Steph, I'm really surprised at you. I've always had respect for your apparent honesty and the research that backs up your statements. And now I find that you're willing to do the dirty because "that's politics".

How do we create a better Canada if we're not listening to each other? How do we create a better Canada if we knowingly spread misinformation?

First of all, no, I did not work for the Liberal party in the last election, but yes, I am for this election and have in many past elections. That is what I went to school for. I make no apologies. Other than if you think me working for a party I believe in is wrong..

As for creating a better Canada, there is only one party that has done so time after time and is still trying to do so, despite the low tactics of Layton and Harper.

I do not have any respect left for Layton because he's a weasel, which makes my job that much easier. He should learn how to grow a spine, back-bone, call it what you will, but not the man to lead my country.

As for Harper, well lets face it, the NDP doesn't take votes away from the Conservatives or the Bloc, they take votes away from Liberals. Thus, they are also the enemy. It's simple poli-sci 101. I am not sorry for anything I have said and will continue to do so. Because say what you want, the Liberal party has a wicked record to run on, all Layton and Harper can do is try to bullshit the people into thinking Martin is corrupt, despite that fact that he's been cleared. So if we want to talk about honesty, lets!

I love this country. I'm doing what I believe is best for it. You can disagree with me as is your right. But Layton and Harper are both trying to sell the public on a bill of bullshit goods that the Liberals have not run a great government, or some how Martin is corrupt. So don't talk to me about lies, they are coming out of both the NDP camp as well as the Conservative camp.

Paul Martin is an excellent leader. His record speaks for itself. Which is more than any one else running in this election can claim. Talk is cheap when the story is good. But who has brought us responsible government? The Liberal Party, that's who. And unless people want to start making shit up, they can not deny that our country is sitting rather pretty at the moment and has been for years.

Why the hell should we trust two parties (Conservatives or the NDP) who have never run this country, when we have a great government that we know already in power. You want to punish Martin for the sins of King Jean? That sounds like a personal problem.

I am working and voting for the Liberal party for two reasons, 1) I believe in them and 2) They are the only party we know we can trust. Because NONE of the opposition have ever held power on a federal level in this country.

http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Lib-can1.gif

Stephistan on honesty: "We are standing at the cliff of a possible Conservative minority. You'll have to excuse me if I do whatever it takes to make sure that doesn't happen"

You will Cease and Desist. I ask nicely for you to take out my words from your sig. As you are using them to clearly flamebait me. I will not bring this to the mods if you Cease and Desist. If you do not, I will. I'm an ex-mod. This is a clear case of flamebait.

Thank you.

Why the hell should we trust two parties (Conservatives or the NDP) who have never run this country, when we have a great government that we know already in power. You want to punish Martin for the sins of King Jean? That sounds like a personal problem.

I am working and voting for the Liberal party for two reasons, 1) I believe in them and 2) They are the only party we know we can trust. Because NONE of the opposition have ever held power on a federal level in this country.
Excellent point. In fact, why don't we just get rid of elections altogether! The only party whose style and method of governance we know is the Liberals. And, as Stephistan so graciously pointed out, we know that we can never trust a party that has never run the country before. So the logical thing to do is simply turn Canada into a one party state.

Excellent point. In fact, why don't we just get rid of elections altogether! The only party whose style and method of governance we know is the Liberals. And, as Stephistan so graciously pointed out, we know that we can never trust a party that has never run the country before. So the logical thing to do is simply turn Canada into a one party state.

Kind of funny how liberals like to boast about individual freedom...only if their party gets voted in office. Great that you point that out.

Trying to convince people to vote along with you is hardly a removal of personal freedoms. Indeed I would argue that it is the epitome of such things.

Clearly she is passionate in her politics, and how she presents that might rub people the wrong way sometimes. But it can hardly be deemed to be an attempt to supress your rights, no matter how somebody attempts to spin in into a facetious notion of political abolishment and how you then attempt to parlay that into an official position and paint an entire political movement with it.


It would be just as fair for me to use your rediculous assertion and claim that as being indicitive of the intellectually dishonesty of all conservatives.

Trying to convince people to vote along with you is hardly a removal of personal freedoms. Indeed I would argue that it is the epitome of such things.

Clearly she is passionate in her politics, and how she presents that might rub people the wrong way sometimes. But it can hardly be deemed to be an attempt to supress your rights, no matter how somebody attempts to spin in into a facetious notion of political abolishment and how you then attempt to parlay that into an official position and paint an entire political movement with it.


It would be just as fair for me to use your rediculous assertion and claim that as being indicitive of the intellectually dishonesty of all conservatives.


I think you're missing the point that was made:

And, as Stephistan so graciously pointed out, we know that we can never trust a party that has never run the country before. So the logical thing to do is simply turn Canada into a one party state.

That's exactly what Steph argued - that we should never trust any party that has never run the country before. That, by default, means that we essentially should have a one-party state - everywhere.

I think you're missing the point that was made:



That's exactly what Steph argued - that we should never trust any party that has never run the country before. That, by default, means that we essentially should have a one-party state - everywhere.


Actually, the full quote of Stephistan is as follows:

Why the hell should we trust two parties (Conservatives or the NDP) who have never run this country, when we have a great government that we know already in power.

She did not state "you can't ever trust", she asked "why should you trust" and qualified it with the stated condition that the government in power was doing a good job.

HUGE semantic difference that blows the conclusion drawn out of the water.

Actually, the full quote of Stephistan is as follows:

She did not state "you can't ever trust", she asked "why should you trust".

HUGE semantic difference that blows the conclusion drawn out of the water.

"Why should you trust" is essentially a rhetorical question. She's saying "You should not trust".

If we shouldn't trust inexperienced parties, then we should have one party.

"Why should you trust" is essentially a rhetorical question. She's saying "You should not trust".

If we shouldn't trust inexperienced parties, then we should have one party.

I just edited above. The question "why should you trust inexperience" was qualified as being conditional to the notion that the existant party was doing a good job. As such, it does not seem to me to be rhetorical. After all, if you disagree with the condition then the question opens up.

However, I can't be bothered to try and argue her state of mind or intent by semantic examination beyond re-iterating my initial statement.

That being that the notion presented by Canada City that attempted to extend her statement to being somehow tellingly indicitive of a general Liberal preference for the removal of individual freedoms was a stinking pile of crap.

I just edited above. The question "why should you trust inexperience" was qualified as being conditional to the notion that the existant party was doing a good job. As such, it does not seem to me to be rhetorical. After all, if you disagree with the condition then the question opens up.

However, I can't be bothered to try and argue her state of mind or intent by semantic examination beyond re-iterating my initial statement.

That being that the notion presented by Canada City that attempted to extend her statement to being somehow tellingly indicitive of a general Liberal preference for the removal of individual freedoms was a stinking pile of crap.

No, I would submit that it's only indicative of Steph's preference for the removal of freedoms by eliminating all other parties.

Stephi, as I've said before, I have no problem with you supporting any party. But you are knowingly spreading malicious lies and defamation. You'd admitted to doing "anything short of outright criminal acts" to make sure your party wins.

I don't care if that's "poli-sci 101". To me that is so wrong, I don't even have the words to describe it. But this, boys and girls, is why average citizens - of any democratic country - do not believe in their politicians or their promises, and why we think it somehow normal for a percentage of our government to be corrupt.

I don't know about anyone else, but I want to be able to hold politicians (and their supporters) to the same level of ethics, trustworthiness, and integrity that I would expect of a friend, family member, neighbour, co-worker, or anyone I do business with. But what we've seen here is an unfortunately eloquent reason why we can't and don't.

This is so very wrong.

This is so very wrong.

We all have our Dark Side.

I want to nuke large sections of the earth's surface, and forcibly sterilize whole populations.

Steph wants to impose one-party rule on Canada.

Well, you can take that up with her then..... although you seem to be just baiting her with that statement if you ask me.


I took it up with Canada City because he attempted to paint an odious ideal on me with it.


and I have this tendancy to fight back (as you may have noticed.... lol)

Well, you can take that up with her then..... although you seem to be just baiting her with that statement if you ask me.

I took it up with Canada City because he attempted to paint an odious ideal on me with it.

and I have this tendancy to fight back (as you may have noticed.... lol)

You and Nazz are quick to respond to strawmen.

You and Nazz are quick to respond to strawmen.

YEah, well they burn so nicely..... they're just so darn hard to resist.

Indeed, I keep marshmallows at my desk just for the occassion....

Well, you can take that up with her then..... although you seem to be just baiting her with that statement if you ask me.

I took it up with Canada City because he attempted to paint an odious ideal on me with it.

and I have this tendancy to fight back (as you may have noticed.... lol)

If you look on page 5, you'll see that I have.

Steph and I have been posting back and forth on several threads, and what has annoyed me most is that she would never respond to me after I responded to one of her attacks on the NDP. You have - and done quite a good job, I might add, and I agree with a number of your points - but she doesn't. She just pops up again later on, posting exactly the same stuff I called her on in the first place. Which culiminated in our quick exchange of posts on page 5, and the statement that Waterkeep decided to sig as "Stephistan's statement of honesty", and what she considers baiting.

It's all very sordid, I'm afraid. I'm just a little disappointed, as I've always respected Stephistan as one of NS premier researchers and debators. It's actually painful for me to see her sink this low, especially when she used to call other people on the same methods she's using now.

It's all very sordid, I'm afraid. I'm just a little disappointed, as I've always respected Stephistan as one of NS premier researchers and debators. It's actually painful for me to see her sink this low, especially when she used to call other people on the same methods she's using now.

Cut her some slack. She's probably bored or tired. When she gets bored or tired on NS, I've noticed she either stops arguing, dismisses you out of hand, or stops posting for a couple of weeks.

I'm so glad that everyone seems to know my intent more than I do even.

1) When I said (without breaking the law) that was a joke. I thought it was pretty clear, but I guess not.

2) I have said that people are free to disagree with me as that is their right.

3) I have not made any "malicious lies and defamation" about anyone. I have said some thing that if I'm wrong about it is news to me. Because every word I've wrote I believe. "Malice" would mean I have tried to be dishonest about something with fore thought, I have done no such thing.

4) I have never TOLD people who they should vote for, only raised what I see as valid questions. If people took that as me some how trying to take away their freedom, well hell, I don't even know what to say to that.

5) Losing the respect of Deep Kimchi is disingenuous of him to say. After all he follows me around this forum and has done so since he was Whispering Legs trying to debate me on every subject I get involved in, it's not like we've ever seen eye to on anything. Further more losing the respect of some one such as Deep Kimchi who is on NS is known for his Plagiarism
(http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=456597) is hardly a sinking blow to me.

6) As to the flamebait question, you put up something that takes my words out of context in your sig designed to bait me, that is what flamebait is. Look it up in the one stop rules.

7) I'm done.

I've read through and as of yet, have a real response.

But, I thought I'd put in my two cents by saying, my blog is going to be host to my election time rants, which are distasteful at best and take cheap shots at the CPC, while remaining neutral to the Liberals and is pro-NDP.

Clicky! (http://ai-rants.blogspot.com/)

I've read through and as of yet, have a real response.

But, I thought I'd put in my two cents by saying, my blog is going to be host to my election time rants, which are distasteful at best and take cheap shots at the CPC, while remaining neutral to the Liberals and is pro-NDP.

Clicky! (http://ai-rants.blogspot.com/)

What are the election laws concerning blogs in Canada? Would that be considered something that you would have to register with the election authorities?

Would that be considered something that you would have to register with the election authorities?

No.

What are the election laws concerning blogs in Canada? Would that be considered something that you would have to register with the election authorities?
Nope, not as far as I know. And further, I'm in Ontario and not BC. So, there has been no word yet. Besides, I'm making general commentary and if I want to support one party, I'm free to do so.

No.
Ah, only if you're the actual candidate...
http://www.streamlinewebco.com/blog/_archives/2004/6/14/87860.html

Ah, only if you're the actual candidate...
http://www.streamlinewebco.com/blog/_archives/2004/6/14/87860.html
That was for the British Columbia elections, which are provincial, not federal.

That was for the British Columbia elections, which are provincial, not federal.
Thanks for the clarification.

I'm wondering how free speech is being impacted by technology - it's going to be reaching absurdity here in the US pretty soon.

6) As to the flamebait question, you put up something that takes my words out of context in your sig designed to bait me, that is what flamebait is. Look it up in the one stop rules.

Ah, fortunately for me then, I have included both context as I've linked it to the original post, so that people can see for themselves, and I'm not putting it up to bait you so much as it is to ensure that anybody who reads your points is able to do so understanding what lengths you feel are appropriate to go to in the name of your chosen party.

Ah, fortunately for me then, I have included both context as I've linked it to the original post, so that people can see for themselves, and I'm not putting it up to bait you so much as it is to ensure that anybody who reads your points is able to do so understanding what lengths you feel are appropriate to go to in the name of your chosen party.

This has nothing to do with "honesty" that is why it's out of context. By do anything, I mean work 18 hour days, go any where to get the message out to people. Lying was not what I had in mind.

Now I will ask you one more time to please take me out of your sig, or I will ask the mods to do it.

Thank you.

This has nothing to do with "honesty" that is why it's out of context. By do anything, I mean work 18 hour days, go any where to get the message out to people. Lying was not what I had in mind.

Now I will ask you one more time to please take me out of your sig, or I will ask the mods to do it.

Thank you.If the Mods feel it's appropriate to remove it, then I don't have any qualms with that. But I think it's valid commentary. After all, if they remove my sig, then, by the same logic you're using, your messages calling NDP candidates "bullshitter"s are just as much flame-bait, if not moreso, because you don't actually provide any evidence or links to back it up.

Personally though, I think you're being disingenuous in this message as well. Considering that the message I link to in my sig is all about honesty, to then turn around and say "Oh, but I wasn't talking about honesty in that one line, just in the rest of the message -- I'd changed topic for that line," strikes as.. well.. dishonest.

However, if you're not being dishonest, please tell me what it was you saw on the page I linked to about the NDP party platform before -- as you immediately claimed that they'd changed it "overnight" and used this change to justify calling Layton a bullshitter. I asked you both what it said before, and anything on that page (http://www.ndp.ca/ourrecord) that was untrue. I've just linked to it now so you can refresh your memory.

If the Mods feel it's appropriate to remove it, then I don't have any qualms with that.

The mods did remove it. and by you putting

"-sig deleted for flamebait-
for linking to Stephistan's message about honesty. "

Is now a warnable offense as you have not taken head of the mod who removed your sig and simply placed it back in your sig.

Now, I can say what I like about Layton, he is a politician and is not a member of Nationstates that we know of. He therefore has no protection as a player on nationstates. Where as I do. I have protection under the rules from another player flaming me, or trolling, or in this case flamebait. If you believe they didn't change the NDP site, just like the Liberals did and the Conservatives after the election was called, that's fine. I know they did.

Regardless, you are still flamebaiting me and now directly going against what a mod ruled.

So I will ask you to please remove it. You're trying to imply I'm a liar and I am not ,in your sig. That is flamebait.

Your sig was removed, and you put it back in again. It was removed for a reason.

Waterkeep: Official Warning for Flamebaiting
Your sig was removed, and you put it back in again. It was removed for a reason.To be entirely accurate, I did not put it back again. I added "at Stephistan's request for quoting her message on honesty" with a link to the appropriate message in this forum. If I'm going to be accused, I'd at least like the record to reflect what actually happened.

Don't you Canadians want to try something else after 12 years of the Liberal government, or is it doing so fine? :)

To be entirely accurate, I did not put it back again. I added "at Stephistan's request for quoting her message on honesty" with a link to the appropriate message in this forum. If I'm going to be accused, I'd at least like the record to reflect what actually happened.

I will retract the official warning, but remember that putting someone in your sig with their expressed interest of being removed is considered flamebait.

To be entirely accurate, I did not put it back again. I added "at Stephistan's request for quoting her message on honesty" with a link to the appropriate message in this forum. If I'm going to be accused, I'd at least like the record to reflect what actually happened.
Though, it is provocative and would serve to inflame passions, making a mountain out of an mole hole.

To be entirely accurate, I did not put it back again. I added "at Stephistan's request for quoting her message on honesty" with a link to the appropriate message in this forum. If I'm going to be accused, I'd at least like the record to reflect what actually happened.

Lets make this simple. Please do not use anything I say as your sig. If you wish to say that in the body of a post, fine. However, all I'm asking you is to not use my words as your sig. I believe that is not unreasonable.

Thank you.

Lets make this simple. Please do not use anything I say as your sig. If you wish to say that in the body of a post, fine. However, all I'm asking you is to not use my words as your sig. I believe that is not unreasonable.

Thank you.

Maybe I could make it simpler.
1. Steph is an ex-Mod.
2. Steph knows Mods.
3. Mods deat people.

Maybe I could make it simpler.
1. Steph is an ex-Mod.
2. Steph knows Mods.
3. Mods deat people.

Nah, I don't believe in that kind of conspiracy.

I was unaware that quoting someone in your sig if they asked you not to was considered flame-baiting (and yes, I did look over the one-stop rules shop) as it struck me as a valid method of bringing awareness. Now I know otherwise, so no problem.

Actually, I go so far as to agree with Kryo. My edit to my sig was done in mean-spiritedness, and shouldn't have been. So I have no problem with taking the warning as well.

Steph: My apologies for that. I do still feel that you've allowed your passions for this election to push you into dishonesty (which you write off as "playing politics) and that just strikes me as sad.

I was going to write something about the election, but I realised like Posi that I'm not in the right topic anymore. AKA let's get back on the subject folks.

Like how Stephen Harper looks so horribly uncomfortable in Quebec. ;)

I am working and voting for the Liberal party for two reasons, 1) I believe in them and 2) They are the only party we know we can trust. Because NONE of the opposition have ever held power on a federal level in this country.

http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Lib-can1.gif

Why not just get rid of all the opposition parties then? What the hell kind of excuse of supporting is "they are the only ones who have held power"? Yep, your right, we can trust the liberals. Oh.....sponsorship....gun registry...military downsizing....yep they are the best party in Canada all right.

Why not just get rid of all the opposition parties then? What the hell kind of excuse of supporting is "they are the only ones who have held power"? Yep, your right, we can trust the liberals. Oh.....sponsorship....gun registry...military downsizing....yep they are the best party in Canada all right.
Why not simply do away with political parties altogether? All people running for office would be barred from membership in any political party. The parties could instead act as Parliamentary consultants or something...

I dunno, I guess I'm just not up to it tonight. I feel a little weary.

Why not simply do away with political parties altogether? All people running for office would be barred from membership in any political party. The parties could instead act as Parliamentary consultants or something...

I dunno, I guess I'm just not up to it tonight. I feel a little weary.

The only problem with getting rid of political parties that I can think of is campaign financing. It seems to me that the process is biased in favour of folks with cash already - without a party system I suspect it would be worse.

I could do with an end to party whips, if there was someway of ensuring that the MPs really were voting the way their constituents wanted, and not the way the nearest lobbyist with a pocketful of cash wanted.

Oh, for an ideal world....

They have another election in such a short time. That's why I'm beginning to dislike parliamentary systems: they have too much political instability to be efficient (unless you're a political genius like Margaret Thatcher).
As for who'd form a government, I haven't the slightest clue. The Conservatives will probably gain a few seats, but not an outright majority. I expect the real fun to happen after the election, just like it did in Germany.

Former Tory PM thinks Stephen Harper won't win.

Why?.....

Their (the Conservative party's) positions are too socially conservative, I think, to form a government in Canada...People may like their fiscal policies but they're frightened by their social conservatism...It's a pity because it denies people a choice on policy issues.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/01/campbell051201.html

http://www.ndp.ca/themes/ndp/images/wallpaper/Thistime-EN-800x600.jpg

They have another election in such a short time. That's why I'm beginning to dislike parliamentary systems: they have too much political instability to be efficient (unless you're a political genius like Margaret Thatcher).
As for who'd form a government, I haven't the slightest clue. The Conservatives will probably gain a few seats, but not an outright majority. I expect the real fun to happen after the election, just like it did in Germany.

Parliamentary instability? Before this election, the Liberals were in power for 12 years, and they're very likely to win again. Before that, the Progressive Conservatives were in for a decade or so themselves. You don't get much more stable than Canadian federal politics, usually. The current situation is an ideosyncracy, albeit one that might last a while.

Here are the latest numbers from the Strategic Counsel poll:

Liberals - 35 per cent (no change)
Conservatives - 30 per cent (+1)
NDP - 15 per cent would vote for the (-2)
Bloc Quebecois - 14 per cent (no change)
Green Party - 6 per cent (+3)

Results are considered accurate within +/- 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Other than the Liberals still leading (or vitually tied with the tories) in the polls, the numbers for the overall impression of Party Leaders are very interesting:

Jack Layton: 58 per cent favourable; 42 per cent unfavourable; for a net of +16 (two point drop in the past month).

Paul Martin: 46 per cent favourable; 54 per cent unfavourable; for a net of -8 (a three point drop in the past month). His number dives to 29 per cent favourable in Quebec, a nine-point drop since last month.

Stephen Harper: 41 per cent favourable; 59 per cent unfavourable; for a net of -17 (holding steady)

Gilles Duceppe: Quebec only numbers: 76 per cent favourable; 24 per cent unfavourable; for a net of +52 (an eight point jump in the past month).

Source: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051201/elxn_strategiccounselpoll_20051201/20051201?hub=TopStories

Liberals are going to keep all their seats...with the exception of Quebec (Canada's PLC voters are going to close their collective eyes on the Commandites/Sponsorship Corruption)

Politicians are going to keep lying and stealing...for as long as the people keeps fegetting and forgiving..

They have another election in such a short time. That's why I'm beginning to dislike parliamentary systems: they have too much political instability to be efficient (unless you're a political genius like Margaret Thatcher).
As for who'd form a government, I haven't the slightest clue. The Conservatives will probably gain a few seats, but not an outright majority. I expect the real fun to happen after the election, just like it did in Germany.

If there is one thing I learned about Canada; if you really want change, you need some political turmoil in Ottawa.

Nice to see you again Canada City. :D :D :D

The Liberals could kill babies and still win the election. Canada is currently a one-party state. The Conservatives are too socially conservative, the Bloc Quebecois will win big in Quebec but has no national presence for obvious reasons, and the NDP and Greens are batshit insane.

Canada City']If there is one thing I learned about Canada; if you really want change, you need some political turmoil in Ottawa.Need change? Vote:

http://www.ndp.ca/ndp-drupal/files/NDP_eng_3-col.jpg

The Liberals could kill babies and still win the election. Canada is currently a one-party state. The Conservatives are too socially conservative, the Bloc Quebecois will win big in Quebec but has no national presence for obvious reasons, and the NDP and Greens are batshit insane.HOW TO FIRE THE LIBERALS GUIDE FOR NDP AND CONSERVATIVES (http://democraticspace.com/blog/2005/11/unseating-the-liberals-a-how-to-guide-for-the-ndp-and-conservatives/)

This guide is very handy. Trust me. :D

HOW TO FIRE THE LIBERALS GUIDE FOR NDP AND CONSERVATIVES (http://democraticspace.com/blog/2005/11/unseating-the-liberals-a-how-to-guide-for-the-ndp-and-conservatives/)

This guide is very handy. Trust me. :D
Too bad that I don't consider either party to be worth my vote at present.

HOW TO FIRE THE LIBERALS GUIDE FOR NDP AND CONSERVATIVES (http://democraticspace.com/blog/2005/11/unseating-the-liberals-a-how-to-guide-for-the-ndp-and-conservatives/)

This guide is very handy. Trust me. :D
Actually, looking back on the 2004 campaign, the Conservatives and NDP focused mainly on the Liberals, so I am not so sure this strategy is that sound.

The most obvious part though is what would the results be IF it were successful? The answer is obvious, a Conservative government.

Now I ask you, which party can the NDP have the MOST success working with to accomplish their agenda in a minority government? Certainly it would not be the Conservatives, especially with Harpers disdain for the NDP. Remember the angry comments that Harper made about the NDP supplimental budget that propped up the Liberals?

And what appears to be Harper's main focus? Day one, the guy is talking about revisiting gay marriages. Would the Charter of Rights be under constant attack from these right wing extremists?

I just can't see the NDP playing nice with the Conservatives just to unseat the Liberals and ensuring nothing but all out battles with the Conservative agenda.

Seriously, TCR. Stop. Posting. That. Logo. Stop posting all logos, in fact, unless they're Stephistan's size ;)

My tax dollars wasted with adscam and gun regestry dissapoint me. I'm a first time voter and I am quite excited about voting. I'll be voting Liberal.

Why? The NDP seem to be too far to the left economically and I want my abillity to marry if I want.

Seriously, TCR. Stop. Posting. That. Logo. Stop posting all logos, in fact, unless they're Stephistan's size ;)At least this is not a logo...

http://www.ndp.ca/themes/ndp/images/wallpaper/BCTeam-800x600.jpg

You're the only guy complaining. What are you trying to do, being a dictator of my own thread? :D jk

At least this is not a logo...

http://www.ndp.ca/themes/ndp/images/wallpaper/BCTeam-800x600.jpg

You're the only guy complaining. What are you trying to do, being a dictator of my own thread? :D jk
So now the NDP built science world?

So now the NDP built science world?LOL... but hey, this is BC! :D

So long as the Liberals get there backsides handed to them during the election, I will be marginally happy. If the Liberal's survive this, I've lost all hope for Canada. The Liberals at the federal level are bloody thieves and will keep thieving until Canada recognizes that fact and promptly sends them the way of the dinosaur. This party shouldn't even be polling in the single positive digits. They bought themselves federal elections, for goodness sakes.

But meh, it will probably be another Liberal majority, thus relegating Canada to a de-facto one party system.

My tax dollars wasted with adscam and gun regestry dissapoint me. I'm a first time voter and I am quite excited about voting. I'll be voting Liberal.

Why? The NDP seem to be too far to the left economically and I want my abillity to marry if I want.
Too far left economically? You might want to check out what the NDP is actually like these days. Try reading some articles by Paul Summerville, a former investment bank economist, who has decided to run as an NDP candidate.

Here's a link to a letter he wrote rebutting a putdown of the NDP in the National Post:

http://www.ndp.ca/page/1802

Here's a link to the Economy section of his blog:

http://paulsummerville.ca/taxonomy_menu/2/10

Have fun reading.

So long as the Liberals get there backsides handed to them during the election, I will be marginally happy. If the Liberal's survive this, I've lost all hope for Canada. The Liberals at the federal level are bloody thieves and will keep thieving until Canada recognizes that fact and promptly sends them the way of the dinosaur. This party shouldn't even be polling in the single positive digits. They bought themselves federal elections, for goodness sakes.

But meh, it will probably be another Liberal majority, thus relegating Canada to a de-facto one party system.
Until the conservatives become more moderate or the NDP suddenly get popular, I wouldn't expect anything else.

Too far left economically? You might want to check out what the NDP is actually like these days. Try reading some articles by Paul Summerville, a former investment bank economist, who has decided to run as an NDP candidate.

Here's a link to a letter he wrote rebutting a putdown of the NDP in the National Post:

http://www.ndp.ca/page/1802

Here's a link to the Economy section of his blog:

http://paulsummerville.ca/taxonomy_menu/2/10

Have fun reading.

Reading those now. Going to take a while to think about them before responding.

Reading those now. Going to take a while to think about them before responding.
I just wish I could find an online version of an article he wrote for a paper called "The Democrat". I think it makes a better argument than any of those other links do. If I find myself with too much time on my hands (that's a big if, I'm afraid) I'll type it out.

A Canadian Voters’ Guide to Strategic Voting (http://democraticspace.com/blog/2005/12/a-canadian-voters-guide-to-strategic-voting/)

I like #2. CONSERVATIVEs strategically vote NDP to prevent a LIBERAL being elected. :D :D :D

Vote Conservative!!


vote Stephen Harper

lol

Vote Conservative!!


vote Stephen Harper

AND DESTROY OUR COUNTRY! :rolleyes:

Our country.

Our country.heh heh... fixed

Don't Vote:

S T _ P H _ N H _ R P _ R

Anyone want to buy a vowel?

E!

Layton urges retaliatory taxes over softwood lumber dispute
Last Updated Sat, 03 Dec 2005 20:30:38 EST
CBC News

NDP Leader Jack Layton says Canada should consider taxing energy exports to the United States if Washington doesn't lift its tariffs on softwood lumber imports.

Layton said trade sanctions might be necessary if the U.S. doesn't dump the import duties that have siphoned $5 billion so far from Canadian producers of softwood lumber.

Layton focused on the softwood lumber issue Saturday during campaign stops in British Columbia, the province hit hardest by the dispute.

"We favour a polite, clear, neighbourly warning that Canada is prepared to impose export duties on oil and gas exports to the United States," he said.

Layton said Ottawa needed to take a tougher stand in the dispute, which is the main trade irritant between the two countries and has been winding its way through a series of dispute proceedings.

The U.S. administration has been refusing to heed several NAFTA rulings supporting Canadian claims that the tariffs were illegal – including a recent one by an international panel whose rulings were to be binding in disputes under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The U.S. Commerce Department eventually said on Nov. 22 that it would comply with the NAFTA panel's ruling on softwood lumber, even though it strongly disagreed with it.

***

To add to this, Canada should do a "snip snip" if the American gov't don't pay the tax. :D Anybody willing to lend me a pair of scissors, a pair of rubber gloves, a car, and an invisibility outfit?

http://www.libertarian.ca/images/libertarian-logo-rcc250.gif

If I was Canadian. But Im American. In which case I suggest that Canadians vote for Republican even if the party isn't there. Don't worry, it's not illogical.:confused:

Apparently both Ralph Reed (US Christian Coalition) and the NRA are in Canada 'counselling' the Canadian gun lobby. Both claim they are not contravening the Election acts limits on foreign intrests influencing the election.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1133566817747&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154
http://politicsinbc.blogspot.com/2005/11/ralph-reed-to-tell-us-how.html
http://www.word.ca/2005/release110405.htm

http://www.libertarian.ca/images/libertarian-logo-rcc250.gif

If I was Canadian. But Im American. In which case I suggest that Canadians vote for Republican even if the party isn't there. Don't worry, it's not illogical.:confused:LOL - are you suggesting that they write in "Bush, George W. - Republican on their ballots?

They should probably just stick with Libertarian. As funny as it is to see Canadians vote for Bush, this way they will help their party grow.

No, they should put in "Kerry, George W."

LOL;)

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/8849/logoprogressiveconservative4da.gif

Bring it back!!!

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/8849/logoprogressiveconservative4da.gif

Bring it back!!!Aren't they called the Progressive Canadians now? Hasn't Sinclair Stevens spent a lot of his personal money (a hundred thousand or so) trying to get the Supreme Court to rescind recognition of the Progressive Conservative - Canadian Alliance merger?

http://www.blocquebecois.org/fr/default.asp
BLOC QUÉBÉCOIS!!!

Or if you aren't from the Province of Québec, NPD is the best choice.

Are you a seperatist or a federalist?

Apparently both Ralph Reed (US Christian Coalition) and the NRA are in Canada 'counselling' the Canadian gun lobby. Both claim they are not contravening the Election acts limits on foreign intrests influencing the election.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1133566817747&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154
http://politicsinbc.blogspot.com/2005/11/ralph-reed-to-tell-us-how.html
http://www.word.ca/2005/release110405.htm

Sounds like someone trying to pull a Michael Moore here.

Shit like this makes me laugh:


The government of Canada is pursuing a radical agenda. It has legally changed the definition of marriage, last month a Parliamentary Committee voted to legalize prostitution, Bill C-407 threatens to legalize assisted suicide and the Liberal Party voted at its last convention to legalize marijuana. Millions of Canadians are shaking their heads with disbelief asking the question “what can we do”? The National Post recently published an article by Lorne Gunter saying, “Canada needs a Ralph Reed”. Who is Ralph Reed and why does Canada need leaders like him?

“Canada needs a Ralph Reed”

*groans*

It's like you're not even trying...

*slaps forehead*

*groans*

It's like you're not even trying...

*slaps forehead*Yeah, I know. Let's stuff Canada City in a wooden crate and ship it to some random bible belt states via FedEx. :D

And remember folks, vote:

http://www.ndp.ca/ndp-drupal/files/NDP_eng_3-col.jpg

And on the upside a new CPAC poll shows that Liberals are gaining strength with 37% of the vote, the Conservatives have dropped in the polls and the NDP might as well shot themselves in the foot at now the lowest number since the election at 15%.

Sorry, only good news today. :)


http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Lib-can1.gif

Does anybody else find it kind of funny the party that would have gained the most from the Sponsership Scandle no longer exists?

I mean the PC would have picked up a but load of seats had they still been around. I think much of Ontario is affraid to vote for Harper simply because they party is too Christian for many of them.

Does anybody else find it kind of funny the party that would have gained the most from the Sponsership Scandle no longer exists?

It's not lost on me. It does seem to be lost on Stephen Harper, not to mention Peter McKay, both of whom are still widely considered to be 'damaged goods', what with the public lies and backroom deals that saw the Progressive Conservative Party put down like an unwanted dog by those two scrabbling powermonger-wannabes.

Everybody knows McKay is next-in-line for Party Leader, and he'll be stepping up to the plate sooner than later, mark my words - and he will do better for the Party, there'll be no doubt about that; McKay'll win back some of that elusive old PC 'Red Tory' vote, but that will be in spite of his checkered past as the last Leader of the late PCP. The question is, how can you place trust in a boldfaced liar? And there will still be people who won't vote Conservative 'til both men are flushed through the system.

And on the upside a new CPAC poll shows that Liberals are gaining strength with 37% of the vote, the Conservatives have dropped in the polls and the NDP might as well shot themselves in the foot at now the lowest number since the election at 15%.

Sorry, only good news today. :)


http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Lib-can1.gif
DOWN CONSERVATIVES DOWN DOWN DOWN!!!

Yep, that's good news. Except for the NDP part...

It's not lost on me. It does seem to be lost on Stephen Harper, not to mention Peter McKay, both of whom are still widely considered to be 'damaged goods', what with the public lies and backroom deals that saw the Progressive Conservative Party put down like an unwanted dog by those two scrabbling powermonger-wannabes.

Everybody knows McKay is next-in-line for Party Leader, and he'll be stepping up to the plate sooner than later, mark my words - and he will do better for the Party, there'll be no doubt about that; McKay'll win back some of that elusive old PC 'Red Tory' vote, but that will be in spite of his checkered past as the last Leader of the late PCP. The question is, how can you place trust in a boldfaced liar? And there will still be people who won't vote Conservative 'til both men are flushed through the system.
Do you really believe that the western Conservative delegates would ever support a leader from the east (MacKay)?

Heck, in their recent policy convention in Montreal, western delegates (former Reform/Alliance) were hard pressed to give equal representation to eastern delegates (former Progressive Conservatives).

They would probably prefer another Stockwell Day over an eastener? Clearly another problem with the new? Conservatives.

DOWN CONSERVATIVES DOWN DOWN DOWN!!!

Yep, that's good news. Except for the NDP part...

To be honest with you, in my perfect world scenario, the Liberals would have a majority government with the NDP as the official opposition.

Of course that isn't going to happen this time around.

Either Martin, or Harper will be elected to form the government, however given the current state of affairs, which ever of the two win, they'll only win a minority government. In fact I can only see minority governments for some time to come, unless the Canadian people surprise me.

http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Lib-can1.gif

In fact I can only see minority governments for some time to come, unless the Canadian people surprise me.

And just think, if Paul Martin can surmount Joe Clark and actually learn to work within that contextual framework, we'll really start cooking with some style and panache.

I have a question.

How much more popular of a vote will the NPD/NDP be this year?

Do you really believe that the western Conservative delegates would ever support a leader from the east (MacKay)?

- If they actually want to be more than a regional, political rump-end like the BQ they sure as Hell better. Wishful thinking can only get you so far, and the West has been daydreaming for fifteen-odd years now. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Heck, in their recent policy convention in Montreal, western delegates (former Reform/Alliance) were hard pressed to give equal representation to eastern delegates (former Progressive Conservatives).

- Well, that's most likely due to a lingering sense of inherent Conservative martyrdom, an over-compensatory hangover from the 'bad old days' of the old PCP. Again, if they want to move forward, they'll have to leave the past behind.

They would probably prefer another Stockwell Day over an eastener? Clearly another problem with the new? Conservatives.

- No doubt they would. Hell, they might very well do just that. It won't help them, though - not on any credible, national level. You can't honestly expect a nation spanning 5 time zones to adopt a singularly provincial outlook. And yet that's precisely what the new CPC seems to demand of us all - that we shelve our sentiments in order to bolster their peculiar brand of Western parochialism.

Talk about falling off the turnip truck. These here Tories'll need another fifteen years to get anywhwere at the rate they're going.

I have a question.

How much more popular of a vote will the NPD/NDP be this year?
... but the election is next year, technically speaking. I don't know, hopefully we'll be well over 24% in terms of overall popularity.

How that'll translate into actual seats in Parliament is much more of a guess.

... but the election is next year, technically speaking. I don't know, hopefully we'll be well over 24% in terms of overall popularity.

How that'll translate into actual seats in Parliament is much more of a guess.


That is wishfull I thinking, or so I believe. The Liberals are already trying to scare NDP votes into voting Liberal saying that a vote for the NDP is a vote for the Conservatives.

AND DESTROY OUR COUNTRY! :rolleyes:
Please. Anyone who thinks any single mainstream party will actually destroy the country is deluded. I'm tired of seeing the Conservatives bashed in such a nonsensical, paranoid way, and I'm not even Conservative. I just wish there was a single bloody Canadian party that a moderate like me could vote for. Unfortunately, they are all either too left or too right, which is why I probably won't even bother voting.

Speaking of which, a question: what documentation is required to vote? I live in Ontario technically, but I'll be in college in Quebec when voting season comes round, so which could I vote in? I would prefer to vote in Quebec if I can get away with it (and if I actually decide to vote), since my vote will make zilch difference in my Ontario district, where the same Liberal has been in office since (I think) before I was born.

Please. Anyone who thinks any single mainstream party will actually destroy the country is deluded. I'm tired of seeing the Conservatives bashed in such a nonsensical, paranoid way, and I'm not even Conservative. I just wish there was a single bloody Canadian party that a moderate like me could vote for. Unfortunately, they are all either too left or too right, which is why I probably won't even bother voting.Too left or too right???

That's preposterous. The liberal party is the centre.

If you think there is no moderate centre in Canada try living in Portugal...
Here you're either (from left to right) Communist, Social-Democrat, Conservative Right or Catholic Conservative. There is no centre.

Please. Anyone who thinks any single mainstream party will actually destroy the country is deluded. I'm tired of seeing the Conservatives bashed in such a nonsensical, paranoid way, and I'm not even Conservative. I just wish there was a single bloody Canadian party that a moderate like me could vote for. Unfortunately, they are all either too left or too right, which is why I probably won't even bother voting.

Speaking of which, a question: what documentation is required to vote? I live in Ontario technically, but I'll be in college in Quebec when voting season comes round, so which could I vote in? I would prefer to vote in Quebec if I can get away with it (and if I actually decide to vote), since my vote will make zilch difference in my Ontario district, where the same Liberal has been in office since (I think) before I was born.

When I was at the University of Guelph I remember they had a booth that let you sign up for voting in that riding. I'm pretty sure all I needed was my S.I.N. and my drivers licens. I'm not sure if Quebec is different but I wouldn't imagine it to be.


As for voting I'm pretty much in the same boat as you. I wont be voting Liberal this time around because of the Sponsership Scandle, I don't believe they deserve to be the ruling government after being caught wasting my money illegally like that. I don't really want to vote Conservative because there are too many politicians with a Christian agenda in their party, however I will vote for them and hope that what ever damage they do manage to do will be over come not too long after they are out of power(assuming they ever gain power)

Please. Anyone who thinks any single mainstream party will actually destroy the country is deluded. I'm tired of seeing the Conservatives bashed in such a nonsensical, paranoid way, and I'm not even Conservative.

We all stopped listening to Chinese Republics when he posted the XXL-sized NDP logo for the 289th time, so your concerns are valid and noted. Plus if he does it one more time we can call him for flamebaiting! ;)






j/k... well...

- If they actually want to be more than a regional, political rump-end like the BQ they sure as Hell better. Wishful thinking can only get you so far, and the West has been daydreaming for fifteen-odd years now. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Why can't someone from a western province become Prime Minister if someone from east Germany can become Chancellor? If eastern Canada is more bigoted against westerners than western Germany is against easterners, there is a very serious problem here.

Too left or too right???

That's preposterous. The liberal party is the centre.

If you think there is no moderate centre in Canada try living in Portugal...
Here you're either (from left to right) Communist, Social-Democrat, Conservative Right or Catholic Conservative. There is no centre.
The Liberal party is not the center, as their name implies.

The Liberal party is not the center, as their name implies.As far as I'm concerned the Liberal Party as a representative of modern liberalism, or social liberalism, aligned with the liberal international, is the centre. Perhaps a bit to the left considering our southern neighbours but on a global scale it is the exact precise centre. At least it is in my opinion.

Where would you place it?

Why can't someone from a western province become Prime Minister if someone from east Germany can become Chancellor? If eastern Canada is more bigoted against westerners than western Germany is against easterners, there is a very serious problem here.
Agreed.

Why can't someone from a western province become Prime Minister if someone from east Germany can become Chancellor? If eastern Canada is more bigoted against westerners than western Germany is against easterners, there is a very serious problem here.


The difference is that Canada isn't in an economic slump and hasn't been for sometime now. Germany has been having some issue and Canada has been running pretty smoothly for a while, therefore the is no real need for any type of major change.

However I'm sure we could elect somebody from the West, or the East for that matter if the Conservatives didn't have so many members trying to push what many of us see has religious views down our throats.

Why can't someone from a western province become Prime Minister if someone from east Germany can become Chancellor? If eastern Canada is more bigoted against westerners than western Germany is against easterners, there is a very serious problem here.


It's not that a person from the western provinces CAN'T be elected, it's that the type of people Western delegates tend to pick to lead their party don't tend to suit the electoral preferences East of Manitoba.

Which is to say that it's not an issue of geography, but rather one of general philosophy of those offered to the East by the West.

The Liberal party is not the center, as their name implies.

One would hope that you can look beyond names to policies. Indeed, the terms themselves are fairly open to interpretation. Most people deem how they view a party's philosophy only by comparing it to their own. As such, to Pat Robertson the Conservatives are probably way to liberal for his liking....

The Liberal party is not the center, as their name implies.

Actually, they are the ONLY centrist party in Canada. They are fiscally responsible and socially liberal.

Those ARE the values of the majority of Canadians after all.

No matter how much people scream and bitch, they are that fine balance one looks for in a national party. Not too far to the left and not too far to the right.

I doubt the majority of Canadians want out-right socialism (NDP) any more than we want out-right fascism.(Conservatives)

http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Lib-can1.gif

To be honest with you, in my perfect world scenario, the Liberals would have a majority government with the NDP as the official opposition.

http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Lib-can1.gif

Should we make this a holiday wish? :D

http://www.ndp.ca/themes/ndp/images/ndp_logo.gif

AND DESTROY OUR COUNTRY! :rolleyes:

Vote Layton

SO HE CAN STEAL OUR MONEY AND BE HONEST ABOUT IT!

Should we make this a holiday wish? :D

http://www.ndp.ca/themes/ndp/images/ndp_logo.gif

The NDP will be lucky to beat the Bloc this time around. No one is forgetting that Layton alined himself and his party with the Conservatives. I'll bet money they lose seats over it.

http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Lib-can1.gif

Vote Layton

SO HE CAN STEAL OUR MONEY AND BE HONEST ABOUT IT!

ok....... steal for himself or steal for healthcare? Take your pick.

http://www.ndp.ca/themes/ndp/images/ndp_logo.gif

The NDP will be lucky to beat the Bloc this time around. No one is forgetting that Layton alined himself and his party with the Conservatives. I'll bet money they lose seats over it.

http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Lib-can1.gif


Yeah its a real shame they had to vote out a party that nobody had confidence in. Clearly the NDP and Conservatives have different views on just about every issue, but it's not a crime to loose confidence in the ruling government.

If eastern Canada is more bigoted against westerners than western Germany is against easterners, there is a very serious problem here.
You've rather missed the point entirely. The point being, the 'bigotry' isn't rooted in the east at all. If you (westerners) could stop wallowing in your (collective) heightened sense of martyrdom and victimhood long enough to look at the issue from perspectives other than your own, perhaps you could see that clearly.

Yeah its a real shame they had to vote out a party that nobody had confidence in. Clearly the NDP and Conservatives have different views on just about every issue, but it's not a crime to loose confidence in the ruling government.
Thank you for that. I for one am getty pretty tired, pretty fast with whingeing Liberal supporters blaming the NDP for Mr. Martin's decision in the fall to set the stage for the toppling of his own government.:rolleyes:

The NDP will be lucky to beat the Bloc this time around. No one is forgetting that Layton alined himself and his party with the Conservatives. I'll bet money they lose seats over it.
The Bloc aligned themselves with the conservatives more than the NDP. Hell, the NDP saved an earlier attempt to overthrow the government.

why is the country so messed up. we can have an election at any time of the year so no wonder our politicians are idiots there is no job security, all the smart ones stuck in business and law. but yeah this will be fun, a race between a hippy with good intentions, a spineless dog, and a boring stonefaced....well I really don't know what to call him other than that. Lastely why does everyone worry about the bloc? it's not like most of quebec belongs to the white people, it belongs to the mohawks so if they seperate then they will have patches of grass here and there, and nevermind how the montreal families :D will own everything....heh dumb bloc.:p

Speaking of which, a question: what documentation is required to vote? I live in Ontario technically, but I'll be in college in Quebec when voting season comes round, so which could I vote in? I would prefer to vote in Quebec if I can get away with it (and if I actually decide to vote), since my vote will make zilch difference in my Ontario district, where the same Liberal has been in office since (I think) before I was born.
You need some proof that you live there. If you live on campus, your university might be set up for dealing with that sort of thing. If you live off campus then bring in a lease agreement, a letter that has been sent to you at your Quebec address, et c. Basically something with your name and address on it.

nevermind how the montreal families will own everything....
This is 2005, not 1805.

Unless you're alluding to Jacques Parizeau's infamous drunken speech decrying "la monnaie pis les ethniques" in the last scrabble to upend Confederation, which is just as ludicrous a supposition as the "Montreal families" owning everything... if only more succinct in its' appeal to the inherently racist heart of "les pures laines" Quebecois.

:rolleyes:

I was refering to the money, not the government but as I said earlier in the post, there won't be much left to own because of old treaties from before quebec ever was there because back then it was just upper and lower canada.:cool:

oh and that part about the white people was put in because I could not find a way of saying that it did not belong to most without giving away the rest of the statement.

I was refering to the money, not the government but as I said earlier in the post, there won't be much left to own because of old treaties from before quebec ever was there because back then it was just upper and lower canada.:cool:
Not to mention that in the event of a referendum win in favour of seperation, there'd have to be a county-by-county vote on whether to remain or secede. As you pointed out, there's a great deal of land (technically owned by the Crown, though administrated by the provincial gov) that rightfully belongs to the various indigenous peoples of Quebec. Labrador is not even up for debate, much and all as Quebec has been righteously pissed off about Newfoundland being given title to that big chunk of cold rocky coastline.

I was having a chat the other day with a friend on just this topic of conversation. We'd actually started by talking about the disparity between urban and rural lifestyles in Canada, and how things might work out better if certain large metropolitan areas were to become 'special Federal economic zones' much like Cancun in Mexico, or even Washington, D.C. in the States. We realized that would rather neatly side-step one of the nastier questions regarding separation - if the island of Montreal were to become such an economic zone prior to a vote on separation, there could be no question as to it's status as Canadian territory.

But honestly, in county-by-county, or even municipality-by-municipality voting, certain areas would choose not to secede: Hudson, The Eastern Townships, the Gatineaus - basically southwestern Quebec would elect to remain. The upshot being that an independent Quebec would comprise Chicoutimi in the north, Laval island, Laurentides and Lanaudiere, the Quebec City Region, extending west past Trois-Rivieres and east to Sept-Isles, with the Gaspe peninsula cutting off the Atlantic Provinces.

As far as I'm concerned the Liberal Party as a representative of modern liberalism, or social liberalism, aligned with the liberal international, is the centre. Perhaps a bit to the left considering our southern neighbours but on a global scale it is the exact precise centre. At least it is in my opinion.

Where would you place it?
I would place it left of center. Considering that my Political Compass score is -0.13, -1.59, and I don't agree with the Liberals on a great many things, I don't see how they are centrists.

The difference is that Canada isn't in an economic slump and hasn't been for sometime now. Germany has been having some issue and Canada has been running pretty smoothly for a while, therefore the is no real need for any type of major change.

However I'm sure we could elect somebody from the West, or the East for that matter if the Conservatives didn't have so many members trying to push what many of us see has religious views down our throats.
I never said Canada was in the same situation as Germany economically, I said that western Germans generally look down upon eastern Germany, yet they elected an East German as Chancellor (mind you, one who is unpopular in East Germany), while this fellow seems to think that westerners should not expect to get a party leader from the west elected as Prime Minister.

Actually, they are the ONLY centrist party in Canada. They are fiscally responsible and socially liberal.

Those ARE the values of the majority of Canadians after all.

No matter how much people scream and bitch, they are that fine balance one looks for in a national party. Not too far to the left and not too far to the right.

I doubt the majority of Canadians want out-right socialism (NDP) any more than we want out-right fascism.(Conservatives)

http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Lib-can1.gif
They are not centrists. There is no center party in Canada. I will admit that the Liberals are the closest to it (at least politically speaking, the economics is debatable), but they are still significantly to the left of center.

They are not centrists. There is no center party in Canada. I will admit that the Liberals are the closest to it (at least politically speaking, the economics is debatable), but they are still significantly to the left of center.Oh, the LPC balance in the centre all right - for the most part they talk left and govern right.

They are not centrists. There is no center party in Canada. I will admit that the Liberals are the closest to it (at least politically speaking, the economics is debatable), but they are still significantly to the left of center.
Define 'significantly'.

From where I'm sitting, Sunny Jim, the Liberals are one of Canada's two right-wing parties, the Conservatives being the foaming-at-the-mouth rabid uber-Christian northern friends of the smirking chimp fanclub and appreciation society, while the Liberals are distinctly fiscally right-of-centre, while still cribbing policy from the only slightly left-of-centre NDP.

You've rather missed the point entirely. The point being, the 'bigotry' isn't rooted in the east at all. If you (westerners) could stop wallowing in your (collective) heightened sense of martyrdom and victimhood long enough to look at the issue from perspectives other than your own, perhaps you could see that clearly.
Maybe you missed the part of this topic where I said I live in Ontario and go to school in Quebec?

I don't think I have missed the point. I'm not saying that an eastern Conservative leader would be bad, I'm saying that the fact that the Conservative leader is from western Canada should not count against him. And why shouldn't westerners *want* a western Prime Minister? When was the last time Canada had one? It's like wanting your country to win medals at the Olympics after a long dry spell, or being proud that the guy who won Canadian Idol came from your home town. I think you're the one who isn't thinking clearly or seeing other perspectives.

Define 'significantly'.

From where I'm sitting, Sunny Jim, the Liberals are one of Canada's two right-wing parties, the Conservatives being the foaming-at-the-mouth rabid uber-Christian northern friends of the smirking chimp fanclub and appreciation society, while the Liberals are distinctly fiscally right-of-centre, while still cribbing policy from the only slightly left-of-centre NDP.
I believe your portrait of the Conservatives is too much of a caricature for me to bother to respond. I can see how some could see the Liberals as being centrists, I suppose; it depends on perspective. Political Compass claims that the liberals are right of center, which makes me raise an eyebrow, since I really can't think of a single issue on which my ideas are more lefty than the libs, and yet PC says I am.

I never said Canada was in the same situation as Germany economically, I said that western Germans generally look down upon eastern Germany, yet they elected an East German as Chancellor (mind you, one who is unpopular in East Germany), while this fellow seems to think that westerners should not expect to get a party leader from the west elected as Prime Minister.

It was Germany's economic position however that led to the election of somebody from the East. The German people wanted a change because the status quo just wasn't doing it for them.

However in Canada we don't have that issues. Most of Ontario agrees with most of the things the Liberals have done, I really see the only bad spot being the sponshership scandle. That might not be enough to know them out of power. However if the Country was on as big of a slump as say Germany then perhaps Canada would be looking for a chnage and the Conservatives would get into power.

They are not centrists. There is no center party in Canada. I will admit that the Liberals are the closest to it (at least politically speaking, the economics is debatable), but they are still significantly to the left of center.


The Liberals tend to swing from side to side. In the mid to late 90's the Liberals made signifcant cuts in social spending(mostly in cuts to how much they gave each province and how much they expected each province to supply for themself.) which would put them on the right of center of things.

Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada (http://www.environmentvoters.org/) :D

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Alliance_Environment_Voters_Party_of_Canada

Maybe you missed the part of this topic where I said I live in Ontario and go to school in Quebec?

I don't think I have missed the point. I'm not saying that an eastern Conservative leader would be bad, I'm saying that the fact that the Conservative leader is from western Canada should not count against him. And why shouldn't westerners *want* a western Prime Minister? When was the last time Canada had one? It's like wanting your country to win medals at the Olympics after a long dry spell, or being proud that the guy who won Canadian Idol came from your home town. I think you're the one who isn't thinking clearly or seeing other perspectives.
Well. if the west wants a Prime Minister then they should start cultivating some top notch politicians that can appeal to the masses, and not kowtow to western principles. Who was the leader of the Alliance before the merger with the Progressive Conservatives.....oh yeah Stockwell "Nickle Short" Day.

The Conservatives need to elect a leader with a vision for ALL of Canada, then they might be successful in getting a PM at 24 Sussex in Ottawa.

It was Germany's economic position however that led to the election of somebody from the East. The German people wanted a change because the status quo just wasn't doing it for them.

However in Canada we don't have that issues. Most of Ontario agrees with most of the things the Liberals have done, I really see the only bad spot being the sponshership scandle. That might not be enough to know them out of power. However if the Country was on as big of a slump as say Germany then perhaps Canada would be looking for a chnage and the Conservatives would get into power.
I'm not saying the Conservatives should get into power. I am saying that the fact that the Conservative leader is from the west should not count against him in politics.

Well. if the west wants a Prime Minister then they should start cultivating some top notch politicians that can appeal to the masses, and not kowtow to western principles. Who was the leader of the Alliance before the merger with the Progressive Conservatives.....oh yeah Stockwell "Nickle Short" Day.

The Conservatives need to elect a leader with a vision for ALL of Canada, then they might be successful in getting a PM at 24 Sussex in Ottawa.
I agree that every party must have a vision for all of Canada. I don't see how the Conservatives don't. I'm not saying it's a good vision because, as I've stated many times, I can't stand any of Canada's political parties, except maybe the Bloc.

It's fine if you dislike Stephen Harper for policy reasons. I myself can't stand the man. I just find the idea that being from the west counts against him disturbing and endemic of Canada's lack of national unity.

Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada (http://www.environmentvoters.org/) :D

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Alliance_Environment_Voters_Party_of_Canada

I'm almost given to think that this is a party created by the Tories to steal votes from the Libs and NDP. of course, they'll probably get a few votes lest than those wacky Marxist/Leninist guys.

I believe your portrait of the Conservatives is too much of a caricature for me to bother to respond. I can see how some could see the Liberals as being centrists, I suppose; it depends on perspective. Political Compass claims that the liberals are right of center, which makes me raise an eyebrow, since I really can't think of a single issue on which my ideas are more lefty than the libs, and yet PC says I am.Which political compass are you using? If you are using one based on US politics, that would explain some things. If you are using http://politicalcompass.org/, then you'll notice that both the Liberal and the Conservative party are on the right wing authoritarian side of the spectrum, although the LPC is pretty centerist. The Bloc are left centerists, and the NDP are left-wing libertarians (and about as far left as the CPC are on the right:

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/canada2005.gif

As for Paul Martin himself, you can see how he compares with other international political leaders. Again, just right of center, on the authoritarian side:
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/internationalchart.gif

What? Is everybody offline?

It's fine if you dislike Stephen Harper for policy reasons. I myself can't stand the man. I just find the idea that being from the west counts against him disturbing and endemic of Canada's lack of national unity.


You DO realize that Mr. Harper was born and raised in Toronto, and didn't move out west until his early 20s don't you?

He is a clear case in point where most Ontarian's issue with him is entirely policy and personality based.

snip

Which only proves what I'm saying, shown by your charts, the Liberal party is about as close to center as it gets. On some issues they are left of center, other issues, right of center. But damn close to the center. Which is why they are clearly the best choice in my opinion.

http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Lib-can1.gif

Which only proves what I'm saying, shown by your charts, the Liberal party is about as close to center as it gets. On some issues they are left of center, other issues, right of center. But damn close to the center. Which is why they are clearly the best choice in my opinion. Off-hand, I'd say the chart shows that they tend towards right of center and authoritarianism more than they do to left of center and libertarianism. All those people who vote Liberal because they think they are center-left should take a closer look at that chart.

Yes, they are the closest to center of all the parties. But I don't think left-wing voters should ignore which side of the line they fall on. It just supports what I've been saying: the Libs talk left, but govern from the right.

I would like to see a party run on an environmental platform. In a broad sense. Not parks, not kyoto, not bad water, not rehabilitating animals. Not the Green Party.

When I say 'environmental platform', I mean a revolutionary set of policies that will change the way Canadians think about their work, transportation, industry, and urban living. Environmental problems, when you think of it, are everything problems; they are THE most fundamental issues that face the world. To me, it is shocking that no party has taken the drastic and inspiring leadership that is so possible, and I think, so imminent on this issue.

1) Legislation requiring off-grid, or partially of-grid (solar, thermal, wind, or whatever is feasable for that climate) power generation for ALL new construction.
2) Tax-credits or cash incentives for retrofitting older buildings.
3) cars outlawed in downtown cores.
4) Sustainable industry practices, ENFORCED.
5) LIMITS on power usage for families and industires.
6) Legislated water purification and recycling systems in all new buildings.
7) Legislation forcing auto companies to convert their operations to 100% hybrid production.
8) Funding for city farming.
9) Funding for for green technologies with a mechanism to put them into mainstream USE.
10) heavy subsidies and forced distribution of sustainable products.
11) Sustainability education.

I realize that these ideas are not totally well thought-out or developed, they are off the top of my head. I also realze that they seem radical, but are they really?
Ask yourself, Why do they seem crazy? There is a sort of collective denial in the minds of the public, and in government about these issues. We seem to believe that changing will ruin our economy, scare away investors, and is impossible, anyway, so why should we try? Why do we look at a sustainable revolution as so daunting and impossible? Probably because of the attitude of big buisness toward it, which permeates government, and permeates us. We should not. Will a governing party, (only the Liberals or Conservatives can legitimize such an agenda) take LEADERSHIP on this critical issue? Grassroots things are happening, on campuses, and communities. I want to see federal, legislated, leadership.

The technology is there.T the science is there. We know that it is essential. We see the drastic results of Global Warming, and the lip-service politicians pay to it. Kyoto? Canada has yet to have a concrete plan to meet our (very conservative) goals. We must get it through our heads that 1) change is possible and 2) we must change. Fundamentally.

I swear, if by the time I know enough, and am old enough, this hasn't been done, I will do it myself. Imagine the day when the Liberal Party of Canada will declare this to be their #1 priority. That will be a great day.

I would like to see a party run on an environmental platform. In a broad sense. Not parks, not kyoto, not bad water, not rehabilitating animals. Not the Green Party.

Uhh.. why not the Canadian Green Party?

Incidentally, I've been looking over the platforms more and more recently. Unless the Greens pull their act together, I'm going to have to move my support elsewhere.

I support the idea of their "Living Platform" to help develop policy, but the time for developing policy stops when the election campaign starts and it seems that, sadly, their current policies are not nearly as comprehensive or sensible as they were for the last campaign.

I guess that's part of the problem of being a party that appeals by policy rather than reputation or cult of personality.. you better have damned good ones.

Uhh.. why not the Canadian Green Party?

The NDP's environmental policies are as good as those of the Green Party. Besides, I don't care how great the green party is, it is, and always will be marginal.
What I want is for one of the governing parties to face this topic. Why is that too much to ask? All it would take is one creative and educated leader to make this an issue. Get scientists, farmers, and industry on board and make a real plan, as opposed to the joke that is Kyoto. Because right now it is not an issue - there is no debate over fundamental environmental issues like there is a debate over healthcare, gun control, and foreign policy. All we get is folks dumbly nodding in agreement to nominal commitments to improve water quality - which is important - but not relevant to the monumental change in culture we will have to comit to as a society.

Which political compass are you using? If you are using one based on US politics, that would explain some things. If you are using http://politicalcompass.org/, then you'll notice that both the Liberal and the Conservative party are on the right wing authoritarian side of the spectrum, although the LPC is pretty centerist. The Bloc are left centerists, and the NDP are left-wing libertarians (and about as far left as the CPC are on the right:

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/canada2005.gif

As for Paul Martin himself, you can see how he compares with other international political leaders. Again, just right of center, on the authoritarian side:
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/internationalchart.gif
Yeah, I'm using that Political Compass. That's why I'm questioning how that can be right when I agree with the Liberals on so few issues, yet end up so near them on the compass (though closer to the Bloc, being slightly libertarian).

You DO realize that Mr. Harper was born and raised in Toronto, and didn't move out west until his early 20s don't you?

He is a clear case in point where most Ontarian's issue with him is entirely policy and personality based.
Yes, I realize his place of birth. I don't see why you keep skirting the issue. How many times do I have to say that I respect you disliking Stephen Harper based on policy issues? My problem is when the argument about east vs. west comes into play and he is degraded for being from the west. I've said I can't stand the man myself and I don't want him as Prime Minister. This is a larger issue than Stephen Harper himself.

Which only proves what I'm saying, shown by your charts, the Liberal party is about as close to center as it gets. On some issues they are left of center, other issues, right of center. But damn close to the center. Which is why they are clearly the best choice in my opinion.

http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Lib-can1.gif
Yet I'm also a centrist according to the compass (a small bit libertarian, too, but still pretty close) and I don't agree with their policies, which makes me question how valuable the compass is when making the choice of who to vote for.

I would like to see a party run on an environmental platform. In a broad sense. Not parks, not kyoto, not bad water, not rehabilitating animals. Not the Green Party.

I wouldn't vote for a one-issue party unless that issue was anti-slavery or separation. The environment is nice and all, but I'd like a party in power that has valuable ideas in other policy areas, as well, and competent people to carry them out.

I would like to see a party run on an environmental platform. In a broad sense. Not parks, not kyoto, not bad water, not rehabilitating animals. Not the Green Party.

When I say 'environmental platform', I mean a revolutionary set of policies that will cahnge the way canadians think about their work, transportation, industry, and urban living. Environmental problems, when you think of it, are everything problems; they are THE most fundamental issues that face the world. To me, it is shocking that no party has taken the drastic and inspiring leadership that is so possible, and I think, so imminent on this issue.

1) Legislation requiring off-grid, or partially of-grid (solar, thermal, wind, or whatever is feasable for that climate) power generation for ALL new construction.
2) Tax-credits or cash incentives for retrofitting older buildings.
3) cars outlawed in downtown cores.
4) Sustainable industry practices, ENFORCED.
5) LIMITS on power usage for families and industires.
6) Legislated water purification and recycling systems in all new buildings.
7) Legislation forcing auto companies to convert their operations to 100% hybrid production.
8) Funding for city farming.
9) Funding for for green technologies with a mechanism to put them into mainstream USE.
10) heavy subsidies and firced distribution of sustainable products.
11) Sustainability education.

Well, it's not their number one priority, but the environment has been high in the NDP platform. Here's the one from 2004, since the platform for 2005/06 isn't available yet:Jack Layton and Canada’s NDP will kick start the clean air revolution by:
• Leveraging the federal government’s remaining 19 per cent stake in Petro-Canada with a new Crown corporation focusing on conservation and renewable energy and committing Canada to creating jobs through green energy self-sufficiency.
• Putting Canada on track to be a global leader in new environmental technology by using the new Crown corporation to establish innovation centres in solar, tidal, wind and geothermal power across Canada, located near fossil fuel centres to ease in the economic transition to a sustainable economy, and by providing tax incentives for renewable energy businesses to locate in those areas.
• Imposing hefty fines for polluters that match the clean-up costs (the polluter-pay principle).
• Using the new Crown corporation to invest in under-used industrial capacity to re-tool machines and create jobs by building wind turbines in Canada and using a new national infrastructure program to foster markets for wind energy.
• Fully phasing in over four years a tax shifting regime to transform incentive, subsidy and investment programs to focus upon green and co-generated energy, including wind power, solar energy, tidal power, biofuels, and energy efficiency as well as transitional technologies such as combined heat-and-power and community energy systems, rather than those that contribute to climate change such as fossil fuels or that produce toxic
residue such as nuclear power. Implementation will be sensitive to and include
negotiated adjustments for regional economic impacts, maturity of sectors and
establishment of compensating strategies.
• Taking responsibility to fairly negotiate, promulgate and implement the regulations in respect of Crown Share Adjustment Payments (CSAP) for Nova Scotia to ensure that Nova Scotia receives its fair share of resource revenues which has been provided for and established in Federal Legislation.
• Making the necessary changes to ensure the spirit of the Atlantic Accord is achieved in practice and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are treated fairly.
• Working with Saskatchewan to ensure it is treated on an equitable basis with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to energy revenues and equalization.
• Establishing a just transition fund for energy workers and the communities in which they live and providing assistance to coal-dependent provinces to close coal plants.
• Assisting provinces to shift from coal-powered plants through a National Power Strategy that meets Canadian needs in a sustainable manner, providing a means to export cleaner hydro power from Quebec and Manitoba to coal- and nuclear-dependent provinces.
•Developing a transition fuel strategy that maintains an adequate domestic supply of natural gas to replace oil and coal by directing the National Energy Board to ensure Canadian energy needs are met before allowing unlimited natural gas exports to the United States.
• Creating the Canadian Climate Exchange, using market economics to generate revenue for green energy and sustainable development by auctioning off emission credits to corporations, with a steady decline of available credits over time. As the price for pollution credits rises, the financial incentive for corporations to pollute will decline, with the auction proceeds funding Canada’s green energy transformation.
• Supporting family farms by expanding incentives for ethanol as a transitional fuel and supplementing farm incomes by importing innovative ideas from states like Iowa, which rents strips of land from farmers for wind turbines.
• Helping northern and remote communities avoid expensive diesel by using Canadian technology and importing innovative ideas from Alaska, which replaces high-cost generators with wind turbines.
• Maintaining the moratorium on oil and gas exploration off the Pacific coast and in the Great Lakes.
• Working to establish a university degree program in green technology to support the education of Canadians to work in this emerging industry.
• Establishing a national building energy-efficient retrofit program to reduce demand for electricity, with funds coming from and profits going to the CPP and by using tax incentives to create housing in city centres to fight the effects of urban sprawl.
• Establishing a commission to recommend innovative federal financial and taxation steps, like shifting current taxes to green taxes or environmental incentives in a revenue neutral framework.

The 2004 Liberal platform said the following:HARNESSING WIND POWER
• Encourage investment – A Liberal government will quadruple the objectives of the existing Wind Power Production Incentive (WPPI) from its current 1,000 megawatts (MW) target to a 4,000 MW target. The expanded incentive will kickstart a number of major projects that are in the advanced planning stages in almost all provinces. Quebec, for example, has issued a request for proposals to construct a 1,000 MW wind farm. The economics of wind power are improving rapidly, but it is not yet cost-competitive with conventional fossil fuel sources. The expanded incentive will also help to build a domestic wind power industry to make us a leader in serving North American and world markets.
• Develop the market – A Liberal government will promote the benefits and cost-effectiveness of wind power to increase consumer demand through a public education program and support for the stated targets. Particular encouragement should be given for small scale projects in isolated communities to complement, or even replace, costly diesel generation.
• Promote R&D – A Liberal government will increase support for R&D on clean energy sources generally, and particularly for wind power. We will create a Canadian National Wind Atlas, a crucially important data source for determining the optimal locations for wind farms. The government will also work with provinces and territories to modernize standards regulating wind turbines and to create common guidelines for wind power policies, rules, and regulations.

The Green party said the following (in 2004):• Work with provinces, First Nations and the logging industry to create national standards that ensure the sustainability of our forests.
• Reform tenure and stumpage fees to encourage selective logging.
• Ban clear-cutting and conserve remaining old growth in federally managed forests.
• Place a 100% export duty on raw logs and use the proceeds to invest in “value added” forestry.
• Promote alternatives to wood as sources of paper fibre — such as hemp and kenaf.
• Work with other nations to eliminate unsustainable fishing on the high seas, create a system of marine sanctuaries and claim sovereignty over all parts of Canada’s coastal shelves.
• Fundamentally alter the management of fisheries by introducing adaptive ecosystem- and community-based methods that support sustainable fisheries.
• Restore ecosystem health to degraded regions of Canada’s oceans by funding sewage treatment programs and river pollution reduction.
• Promote the life-cycle product stewardship of metals to ensure that, once mined, they remain in economic service for generations.
• Ensure that all mining operations are insured for environmental liabilities and have a pre-funded plan for remediation when the mine is closed.
• Rescind all uranium-mining permits and prohibit the export of fissionable nuclear material.
• Allow cities to license smaller, more efficient vehicles and exercise more control over local transportation policies.
• Work with Canada’s railway companies to improve our rail infrastructure and restore VIA rail service to all major cities.
• Provide fiscal stability for municipal light-rail and subway investments by inking a ten-year funding contract with our cities.
• Cancel federal subsidies for highways and traffic systems and implement a GST “feebate” program to promote fuel-efficient cars and trucks.
• Create a national “clean trucking” initiative, which will redirect fuel tax expenditures to the improvement of fleet efficiency and safety.

Sorry, but I don't have a copy of the 2004 Conservative platform saved on my computer.

And Kreitzmoorland, I strongly suggest that you pretty up your presentation a bit, and then email it around to all the parties. It sure wouldn't hurt them to hear some of your ideas, and to know that people are thinking about these topics.

I wouldn't vote for a one-issue party unless that issue was anti-slavery or separation. The environment is nice and all, but I'd like a party in power that has valuable ideas in other policy areas, as well, and competent people to carry them out.I don't think you get it. My point is exactly that I DON'T want a one-issue party (which, by the way, the Greens party isn't) taking this matter forward. A mainstream party must do it. My other point was that the envirinment isn't "one issue" - it ties into every issue (health, industry, cities, farms, energy, natural resources, and on) and thus deserves our highest priority.


Well, it's not their number one priority, but the environment has been high in the NDP platform. Here's the one from 2004, since the platform for 2005/06 isn't available yet:

And Kreitzmoorland, I strongly suggest that you pretty up your presentation a bit, and then email it around to all the parties. It sure wouldn't hurt them to hear some of your ideas, and to know that people are thinking about these topics.Yes - the NDP's environmental policies are strong, and that's one of the main reasons that they are getting my vote. Unfortunately, they will never be in a position to implement them unilaterally.
Thanks for the suggestion Equus - I think I'll take your advice. I intend to make a fuss about this in any way I can.

Thanks for the suggestion Equus - I think I'll take your advice. I intend to make a fuss about this in any way I can.You're welcome. If we don't make a fuss about the things that are important to us, things will never change.

And they always pay WAAAY more attention to letters and emails written by indivduals than they do to 'form' emails or petitions. Form emails in particular are all lumped together and not taken seriously unless they get a really HUGE amount of interest.

And they always pay WAAAY more attention to letters and emails written by indivduals than they do to 'form' emails or petitions. Form emails in particular are all lumped together and not taken seriously unless they get a really HUGE amount of interest.
Yup. Every 'single' communication is considered to have more weight than a petition. Even telephone calls made are felt to reflect the views of not one person, but a percentage of the population-at-large.

Harper threatened national unity: Stronach
Last Updated Mon, 05 Dec 2005 20:54:28 EST
CBC News

Liberal MP Belinda Stronach lashed out Monday at the leader of her former party, saying she defected because of the threat Stephen Harper posed to national unity.

Stronach said the Conservative leader was determined to bring down the Liberal minority government last May for his own "immediate partisan benefit."

She called it an "ill-conceived assault" on federalism in Quebec.

"I didn't work so hard to put the two conservative parties together to have Mr. Harper break apart this country," Stronach told the Canadian Club in a speech Monday in Toronto.

She said only the Liberals were capable of keeping Canada together.

Stronach, who immediately became minister of human resources after joining the Liberals, has been accused of making the move for opportunistic reasons.

"When some people suggest opportunism on my part, it was: the opportunity to serve the national interest," she said.

Stronach was instrumental in the movement to unite the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative parties. But she lost to Harper in the subsequent Tory leadership race.

Her decision to join the Liberals helped the party stave off a budget-vote defeat in May.

She pointed out that if the Liberals had been defeated in that vote, she would only have been human resources minister for a day.

***

Wow, this must be the 3rd tory/red tory telling us that Stephen Harper and the Conservative are incapable of running the whole country.

I'm not saying the Conservatives should get into power. I am saying that the fact that the Conservative leader is from the west should not count against him in politics.


I don't think it has anything to do with where he mostly represents, it has to do with what his party represents.

Being from southern Ontario religion was never a major thing for me, none of my friends were really religious at it took me a while before I found some very devout Cathoiics. Now living in Toronto I see many more religious people but still the large marjority of the people I know are not religious. As such most of the people I know have no desire to revist abortiong/gay marriage or any other view that might be seen as mostly Christian.

Unfortunetly for the Conservatives it is the most religous who get quoted the most often. Many of these quotes reflect badly on the Conservatives, and Harper does very little if nothing to denounce many of these quotes. That is the real issue, it has nothing to do with West vs. East

Yes, I realize his place of birth. I don't see why you keep skirting the issue. How many times do I have to say that I respect you disliking Stephen Harper based on policy issues? My problem is when the argument about east vs. west comes into play and he is degraded for being from the west. I've said I can't stand the man myself and I don't want him as Prime Minister. This is a larger issue than Stephen Harper himself.


But what you fail to note is that the issue of East v West comes into play predominantly from the west!

They continue to present to Ontario leaders who obviously will not have broad appeal here, and then call it a geographic bias when we don't accept them. I have never once heard an Ontarian criticize any of the Reform / Allicance/ or now CPC leaders due to their point of origin.

Preston's Reform party WAS susepcted of being a party of regional interest, but more to the point his tenure was prior to the merger of the right. As such he was splitting the conservative vote with PC candidates in Ontario - many of whom were well respected in their communities. Chretien coasted through that vote splitting for two elections.

Stockwell day? Mr Wetsuit Wearing, use public funds for private legal defence, can't govern the country on Sundays because that is the Lord's Day? Oh yeah - THERE'S a winner!

And now Stephen, who has the onscreen personality of a wet mop, has the stigma of having been a Mulrooney staffer, and is of significantly further right persuasion on the social side than what normally sells in Ontario - and yet still picked up 24 seats here last time around - which, compared to his 26 in Alberta means that he did pretty well given that he was a new face on the scene, and an angry one at that.

So, I reiterate, there is virtualy NO ISSUE of East v West in Ontario.

I am far less sure, however, about the opposite.

So, I reiterate, there is virtualy NO ISSUE of East v West in Ontario.

I am far less sure, however, about the opposite.As a westerner, I would agree.

I am tired of two things:

1) Albertans claiming to speak for the entire west.
2) Westerners blaming the people of Ontario whenever they don't get what they want. Makes all of us sound like a bunch of spoiled brats, even though they're just a vociferous minority.

Harper threatened national unity: Stronach
Last Updated Mon, 05 Dec 2005 20:54:28 EST
CBC News

Liberal MP Belinda Stronach lashed out Monday at the leader of her former party, saying she defected because of the threat Stephen Harper posed to national unity.

Stronach said the Conservative leader was determined to bring down the Liberal minority government last May for his own "immediate partisan benefit."

She called it an "ill-conceived assault" on federalism in Quebec.
Without being told by the media, this is how I actually felt about the whole Harper affair. I honestly believed that he was putting his own personal aspirations ahead of those of this great country.

He has failed as a statesman and I believe that he should be rewarded accordingly.

Well, what does everyone think of the two different tacks taken on childcare?

Martin wants to invest 5 Billion in a program to make subsidize non-profit childcare, while Harper wants to give each parent $1200 no strings attached, on top of the child tax deduction.

I personally prefer the free childcare program myself - Harper is just finding another way to cut taxes.

wow, i thought this thread is long gone...

wow, i thought this thread is long gone...It's still got plenty of mileage. Dude, the thread is only a week old.

But what you fail to note is that the issue of East v West comes into play predominantly from the west!

They continue to present to Ontario leaders who obviously will not have broad appeal here, and then call it a geographic bias when we don't accept them. I have never once heard an Ontarian criticize any of the Reform / Allicance/ or now CPC leaders due to their point of origin.

Preston's Reform party WAS susepcted of being a party of regional interest, but more to the point his tenure was prior to the merger of the right. As such he was splitting the conservative vote with PC candidates in Ontario - many of whom were well respected in their communities. Chretien coasted through that vote splitting for two elections.

Stockwell day? Mr Wetsuit Wearing, use public funds for private legal defence, can't govern the country on Sundays because that is the Lord's Day? Oh yeah - THERE'S a winner!

And now Stephen, who has the onscreen personality of a wet mop, has the stigma of having been a Mulrooney staffer, and is of significantly further right persuasion on the social side than what normally sells in Ontario - and yet still picked up 24 seats here last time around - which, compared to his 26 in Alberta means that he did pretty well given that he was a new face on the scene, and an angry one at that.

So, I reiterate, there is virtualy NO ISSUE of East v West in Ontario.

I am far less sure, however, about the opposite.

If you haven't heard anyone criticize Harper on his origins, you must not have been listening much. I think there is both an east vs. west and west vs. east mentality in this country. I would agree that the latter is more virulent, as is to be expected when the west feels it is the one out of the pair getting the short end of the stick.

I'm hardly defending the west's whining; if they want to have some control over their destinies they should go the Quebec route and separate, since Canada's federal structure simply leaves them no other viable option. And as I've said six hundred billion times now, this isn't about bloody Stephen Harper or any other particular personality. I'm discussing the fact that I can sympathise with the west wanting to get someone pitching for the home team into Ottawa. Hopefully, it will soon realize that this will never happen and go for something more realistic like a referendum on separation.

Da Thread Is Alive!!!!!!!!

Well, what does everyone think of the two different tacks taken on childcare?

Martin wants to invest 5 Billion in a program to make subsidize non-profit childcare, while Harper wants to give each parent $1200 no strings attached, on top of the child tax deduction.

I personally prefer the free childcare program myself - Harper is just finding another way to cut taxes.Anything that even suggests that having a kid might serve as an economic benefit should be immediately tossed.

Once my wife and I, through a number of events, wound up on welfare for a couple of months. The case-worker had the nerve to suggest that we have a kid, as that would enable us to receive more benefits. I was very tempted to simply walk out at that point and report her to a supervisor. Unfortunately, the mortgage was coming due and while I had some good leads, no actual jobs had turned up yet.

Things have since changed, but I'll never forget that incident. I wonder how many children have been brought into this world on that lady's advice that the parents will get more money for it. What kind of love must that child feel, especially when the parents realize just how much a kid actually costs.

Well, what does everyone think of the two different tacks taken on childcare?

Martin wants to invest 5 Billion in a program to make subsidize non-profit childcare, while Harper wants to give each parent $1200 no strings attached, on top of the child tax deduction.

I personally prefer the free childcare program myself - Harper is just finding another way to cut taxes.

As you prefer the government giving out handouts and lazy parenting over Harper's "It's the parents job to be parents, not the government" stance?

:headbang:

Canada City']As you prefer the government giving out handouts and lazy parenting over Harper's "It's the parents job to be parents, not the government" stance?Bah. Both of these programs have a great potential to be abused, if people choose to abuse them. From what I've read, the Martin promise is actually smaller than childcare promises the Liberals have offered in previous years, and it's doubtful that this funding will actually open up many new daycare spots. Furthermore, his funding promise doesn't include any way to ensure that spots that do open will be provided to families on the basis of their ability to pay (so that wealthy parents aren't taking subsidized spots away from parents with a limited ability to pay). On the other hand, it's not that difficult to legislate that subsidized placement be based on income - most provinces already do that with home care for seniors, for example.

Harper's promise on the other hand, has no strings attached. In most cases, the equivalent of $100 a month will not let a parent stay home if they had to work before, it won't pay for a childcare slot without further subsidization, and no way to prove that the money has been spent on anything child related.