Canadian Election

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]CaptainLogic wrote:
Oh and btw, whether these sentences were handed out by liberal appointed judges or not is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is our justice system is soft on violent crime and the liberal government has done NOTHING to improve it.
[/quote]

Aha! This is a different kettle of fish. And something with which I can agree, to a point – but it falls outside of the scope of a political discussion IMO. Also, the problems afflicting the judicial system are complex enough that (sentence * 2 + mandatory) isn’t going to solve anything, and will certainly make other aspects of said system worse.

-Glee

102

[quote]towner24 wrote:
A. They fixed the giant economic mess Mulroney left us, even though the Conservatives are supposed to be the fiscally-responsible ones.

I don’t agree. Who slashed Trudeau budgets? Who implemented a widely unpopular 7% GST tax? Implemented free trade?[/quote]

I can grant that, to a point. Good ideas to turn around the economy, but they were executed poorly. The GST was and is top-heavy (which is why, even though I hate it, I don’t want to see it dismantled for a while). And free trade brought us middle-term benefits at the cost of long-term loss. But in the long term, Mulroney isn’t in office so he doesn’t care about the big picture (nor do most politicians TBH).

Agreed, this is one of the few Liberal actions I disapprove(d) of, along with the ill-conceived gun registry and not kicking McLellan to the curb for the HRDC scandal.

[quote]B. They did so while remaining socially responsible, for the most part.

Yea right, mostly…except when they were stealing our money in Quebec, right (sponsorship scandal)?[/quote]

Yeah, because in the history of politics around the world, only the Canadian Liberal Party from 1993-2006 has ever been corrupt :wink:

I have no problems putting the blame on Martin for that one. He’s a weak leader and should have been kicked out of the party a long time ago.

You have my full agreement there. Every single government since the late 50s deserves our ire for that one.

[quote]Or how about quality of healthcare in this country? Record spending, and record wait times.

(While ranking number one as a health care spender, Canada ranks fifteenth of 24 in access to MRIs, seventeenth of 23 in access to CT scanners, eighth of 22 in access to radiation machines, and is tied for last in access to lithotriptors.) http://www.canstats.org/readdetail.asp?id=748

Need I go on?[/quote]

A lot of that has to do with bickering between the provinces and the federal government. Another issue, however important.

[quote]C. They’ve proven themselves capable of effectively leading for the last 13 years.

No, they’ve proven themselves capable of effecting the status quo. Not leading us into the next century.[/quote]

All I have to do is look south, through the dot-com bust and the erosion of civil liberties and the increasing megalomania and paranoia among men who really should know better, and I have precious few complaints about the status quo. Especially if the status quo includes a positive-balance budget.

[quote]D. Better the Devil you know. As they’re under a microscope, it’s highly doubtful the Liberals will be nearly as corrupt as they were during the last 2 years, and certainly not as corrupt as the Conservatives can be at the best of times.

No, no no no no no. And NO.

First off, Conservatives are corrupt? Really? Now who’s speculating. Back this up.[/quote]

They’re politicians. They also have a self-avowed interest in big business. QED.

[quote]Better the Devil you know? Do you come to this website to use the same workout that you know? Or do change, adapt, change, and GROW. Change is an integral part of growth as an individual, or as a nation.

Change for the sake of change isn’t good either, but the fear mongering about conservatives has to stop. If you are afraid of change, you are afraid to be better.[/quote]

Limiting the rights of homosexuals to marry is better? Spending more police resources chasing down stoners instead of real criminals is better? Sending our troops to Iraq for no reason whatsoever is better?

I agree wholeheartedly. This is why I hope the Liberals lose even more seats. But not to Harper’s conservatives.

Perhaps I should clarify – I have no major objection to the right side of the political spectrum. I consider myself a Libertarian. What I object to at this juncture is Harper himself, and the far-right Reform loonies he’s shutting up to appeal to the masses. If McKay were the Conservative leader, I’d probably be voting blue.

[quote]E. They kept us out of that nightmare in Iraq.

I’ll go on record as saying I was initially against the war, and am still not sure it was a good idea. Time will tell, I’m willing to admit I may have been on the wrong side of this (if it works out well, which I hope it does).

That said, what the liberals did was commit the troops that would have been sent to Iraq to Afghanistan as relief for American troops. Publicly we said no to Iraq, in reality we boosted our presence in the area (which I am for).

I’ll end with an agreement on your last point ;)[/quote]

Thanks! Even if the Iraqi invasion eventually works out, it was conducted under multiple false pretenses, and harmed international relations between the USA and virtually everyone else in the world.

-Glee

103

[quote]Gleemonex wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Doesn’t Canada have fewer people than California? Hell, it may have fewer than a couple of US states.

Isn’t Arnold Schwarzennegger fewer people than Canada? Isn’t he, in fact, one single person? Then why do I keep hearing you lot yammer on about him here?

Arnold? How the fuck does this prove anything? The guy’s a CELEBRITY. I’ve never heard of any one of your politicians.

You do, obviously. Thanks for posting in our “Canadian Election” thread!

Because your posting on an American site! Save it for Canadians!

In the Ohio Governorship thread? Sure![/quote[

It’d probably be more interesting than this thread.

104

[quote]CaptainLogic wrote:
Gleemonex wrote:
A. They fixed the giant economic mess Mulroney left us, even though the Conservatives are supposed to be the fiscally-responsible ones.

-Glee

Sorry Glee, you can’t really blame the economic mess on Mulroney. If you look at the history of economic recessions, you’ll see that there was one in the early eighties as a result of monetary policies introduced in the US to control inflation and correct for overproduction in the previous decades.

In the late eighties there was another recession caused by a sharp stock crash in the United States which caused a recession in much of the west.

So, unfortunately for Mulroney and the conservatives, much of the time they spent in power was during times of recession or recovery from recession.
[/quote]

Okay, I can grant that. Mulroney still did a screw-job on our economic trade with the US, however. As I mentionned in my previous post: mid-term gain for long-term loss. And a BIG loss at that. We’re the USA’s #1 supplier of oil. They (the administration) should be overjoyed that we don’t just build an oil line right to China [1]! Witness the US administration’s refusal to abide by the terms of the FTA wrt softwood lumber, for example.

Oh, I’m certainly aware that Harper isn’t Mulroney. That’s what scares me the most.

-Glee

105

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
CaptainLogic wrote:

Hey Glee,

I’ve found it’s actually better not to dignify his posts with a response. This is just another example of him trying to say something provocative in his desperate struggle for attention. [/quote]

Perhaps, but troll-bashing is so fun =)

No.

Do you know what 54.40’ or fight even means? It means “give us all the territory south of 54.40’ North Lattitude or we will fight you for it”. Guess what – the Canadian-American border is at 45 degrees North Lattitude. Or, in the case of Ontario, far south of it.

Madison started the war of 1812 for one reason and one reason only: to annex Canada. Canada remains un-annexed. I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

-Glee

106

im voting NDP.
Irene mathison all the way.
go I-Math

107

Well, I find it interesting Glee that although we disagree on things, I think we likely agree on even more.

You don’t like Harper, but I do. He’s not a super charismatic guy. He’s a guy that it seems you either like or dislike - but I like that about him.

[quote]Gleemonex wrote:
Yeah, because in the history of politics around the world, only the Canadian Liberal Party from 1993-2006 has ever been corrupt :wink:
[/quote]

I used to think like that too, but this is a form of relativism that just doesn’t cut it. It’s not ok for them to steal, and be damned who else in the world is doing it.

We have to be careful when looking down our noses at what happens in the states - there are some freedoms that they are losing that we don’t even have. Do you know what our gov’t is doing right now to erode our rights? If you don’t, it’s not because it’s not happening…it’s because we aren’t paying attention. This is why I’m for getting big brother OFF our backs…as much as possible. NDP/Liberals will not limit the power of the feds. I believe the conservatives will, as much as the people of Canada will allow (I wish they’d allow more).

I see Canada as a place with so much potential, I can’t believe a balanced budget is all you want out of our country!

I want Canada to be better than it is, I want people to have more freedom, not less. I want us to put our money where our mouth is, and actually do things instead of complaining or waiting for someone else to do it.

Because they are business minded and politicians they are corrupt? C’mon! That’s absurd, and I think you know that.

It’s a two way street here. The more gov’t sticks its fingers in business, the more business will stick its fingers in politics. This is a whole other topic tho (Wal-mart thread a good analogy again).

Now you are really grasping at straws. I just don’t think you understand the conservative position.

First, a free vote about definition of marriage does in no way limit the rights of homosexuals. Harper has been clear, that any civil union between gay couples should have the same benefits as straight couples. The objection is over the word marriage. And, quite frankly, a free vote in a minority gov’t is certainly not conservatives forcing anything on anyone. Each elected member will have their chance to exercise their own vote.

Police resources is not a bad thing. More boots on the ground is better than fewer. You don’t agree that resources will be spent on the war on drugs, I agree - this is again, a whole seperate thread topic. But to summarize, again, more cops is better - even if you don’t agree where they all will be put.

Iraq, who said anything about Iraq? Not part of the platform, and I’d be severly impressed if we could actually find another soldier to send anywhere.

That said, if they do - are you really opposed to us helping to ensure stability in Iraq? What’s done is done, because we didn’t agree with the invasion is no reason not to help people when and where we can.

108

Headhunter,

Please go find someone else to annoy.

Thank you.

109

[quote]vroom wrote:
Doesn’t Canada have fewer people than California? Hell, it may have fewer than a couple of US states. I guess if you live there it’s interesting but basically, … who gives a shit? Should I come on here and go on about who will win the governorship of Ohio?

Well, when people wake up to the fact that we’ve got more oil than anyone else, then they’ll be nice to us… but we’d better invest in our military or they’ll find a reason to invade![/quote]

Yes we do have a lot of oil Boyo but even more important is we have more fresh water than the rest of the world COMBINED, so uh yeah we better get pretty fuckin proactive, the gloves tend to come off when resources that determine survival are involved

110

I was ‘out of line’ for ripping on Canada. Put it down to low Test. I humbly apologize to all Canadians for my earlier remarks.

If you’re not an idiot once in a while, you’re not alive.

111

[quote]towner24 wrote:
Well, I find it interesting Glee that although we disagree on things, I think we likely agree on even more.[/quote]

Agreed. I’m glad we can debate without getting angry with eachother =)

Well, I certainly dislike him. And one thing I don’t like about him, as with his American confrere Bush, is that he’s become increasingly charismatic and slick.

[quote]Gleemonex wrote:
Yeah, because in the history of politics around the world, only the Canadian Liberal Party from 1993-2006 has ever been corrupt :wink:

I used to think like that too, but this is a form of relativism that just doesn’t cut it. It’s not ok for them to steal, and be damned who else in the world is doing it.[/quote]

I agree. However, it makes no sense to prefer one party over another on the basis of corruption. Especially when there’s a record of the “other” party also being corrupt.

Holy crap, whoa! I’m afraid I disagree diametrically with you there. Look at the whole gay marriage issue, as well as the stirrings about the decriminalisation of marijuana. You call that a Big Brother state?

Now look south at the current brouhaha about a right-wing government spying on its own citizens outside the realm of the law it claims to uphold.

Shifting the government rightwards will do nothing to preserve our freedoms. Quite the opposite. Moderate left-wing social doctrine leads to greater personal freedoms in almost all verifiable cases.

[quote]I see Canada as a place with so much potential, I can’t believe a balanced budget is all you want out of our country!

I want Canada to be better than it is, I want people to have more freedom, not less. I want us to put our money where our mouth is, and actually do things instead of complaining or waiting for someone else to do it.[/quote]

A balanced budget allows us the luxury of worrying about these important matters without being fiscally irresponsible.

[quote]They’re politicians. They also have a self-avowed interest in big business. QED.

Because they are business minded and politicians they are corrupt? C’mon! That’s absurd, and I think you know that.[/quote]

For every truly good high-profile politician I can think of, I can think of 5 shysters.

I don’t think MOST politicians are corrupt, but those few that are corrupt can cause some serious damage to the political machine, so they should be treated with considerable scrutiny and skepticism.

[quote]Now you are really grasping at straws. I just don’t think you understand the conservative position.

First, a free vote about definition of marriage does in no way limit the rights of homosexuals. Harper has been clear, that any civil union between gay couples should have the same benefits as straight couples. The objection is over the word marriage.

And, quite frankly, a free vote in a minority gov’t is certainly not conservatives forcing anything on anyone. Each elected member will have their chance to exercise their own vote.[/quote]

The decision has already been made. The issue is done and over with. Why is Harper so obsessed with gay sex? If he wants to be Prime Minister, he should start acting like one and worry about issues that really matter.

No, police resources aren’t a bad thing – but simply adding cops to the existing system is an oversimple solution. And the War on Drugs™ is its own debacle.

No, but Harper has said that he would have joined the Americans in Iraq. Stupid, dangerous, expensive, short-sighted, pandering, AND bad for foreign relations. The only benefit would have been slightly-improved relations with the USA.

Then again, our involvement in Afghanistan should have counted for something, but our softwood lumber and Alberta beef is still banned from the USA.

Iraq isn’t a nation. It’s a collection of tribes and fiefdoms that learnt to violently hate eachother at the same time they learnt what a nation state is, sometime in the early 1900s.

So, yes, I do oppose the imposition of an artificial political structure in a ‘nation’ that had fared well for thousands of years without it. But that’s also another subject :wink:

True, and I don’t oppose non-military assistance to the Iraqi people – not in the least because we might be able to establish some business relations with post-war (heheheh) Iraq.

-Glee

112

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I was ‘out of line’ for ripping on Canada. Put it down to low Test. I humbly apologize to all Canadians for my earlier remarks.[/quote]

Not that it’s necessarily my place to do so, but apology accepted, man. There’s nothing wrong with joking around – hell, Canadians make fun of themselves, er, ourselves all the time! So long as the joking doesn’t get too mean-spirited.

-Glee

113

Don’t worry about it. I have been very critical of Canadians on these boards and probably owe more apologies than you do.

114

Well everyone, I don’t know about you guys but I’m sick with nerves about tonight’s results. I always get like this.

We are about to head over to a golf and country club to watch the results come in with the local Conservatives.

I even pulled my old “Think Big” pin out of storage for the occasion. Most of you probably don’t remember “Think Big” but it was the slogan the Reform party choose when they were in the process of convincing the membership to dissolve Reform and create the Canadian Alliance.

I thought it would be fitting for tonight. The last time I wore that pin I stopped a flag pole from falling on Preston Manning’s head, so it is my good luck pin.

Go Conservatives!!!

115

[quote]JPBear wrote:
Well everyone, I don’t know about you guys but I’m sick with nerves about tonight’s results. I always get like this.

[/quote]

Things are looking good so far JP, I got this from the CBC website:

“At 10 p.m, the Tories were leading or elected in 99 ridings in central and eastern Canada, the Liberals in 89, the Bloc in 39 and 20 for the NDP.”

If the tories are leading after tallying the votes in EASTERN Canada, the liberals are history…AND my Senators beat up on the Leafs again!

Time to go do some serious celebrating.

PS Anyone watch This Hour Has 22 Minutes? Some of my favourite lines:

Belinda Stronach: “A vote for me is a vote for whoever wins.”

Some guy to Jack Layton: “Hey I think you and I have something in common, I’m only liked by about 16% of the people I meet too!”

116

Right now the TV is suggesting they expect a Conservative minority…

117

[quote]vroom wrote:
Right now the TV is suggesting they expect a Conservative minority…[/quote]

And now its more than a suggestion. Done deal.

118

Thank Trudeau they didn’t win a majority.

I don’t really mind a Conservative minority. We get to present a right-wing face to the Bushies, but the Conservatives can be stopped from doing anything TOO stupid.

Thanks for the lively debate, all.

-Glee

119

[quote]Gleemonex wrote:
Thank Trudeau they didn’t win a majority.

I don’t really mind a Conservative minority. We get to present a right-wing face to the Bushies, but the Conservatives can be stopped from doing anything TOO stupid.

Thanks for the lively debate, all.

-Glee[/quote]

Thank you as well. I’m satisfied with the results, although it was a bit anti-climatic. The only thing that surprised me was the NDP gaining TEN seats! I guess low-income families finally realized they should vote for the party with their best interests in mind?

Anyway, here’s an interesting article about how overpaid our MPs are, and how their compensation packages are equally likely to ‘angry up the blood’:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/CanadaVotes/2006/01/24/1409888-cp.html

I miss the Rhinoceros party :frowning:

120

Congrats Canadians! I hope your new PM will be more fiscally conservative than our President Bush. Bush is a fine man but lets Congress spend, spend, spend. He’s too nice to say ‘No!’