Canada's Conservatives, Liberals Tied in Latest Poll

[Breakthrough2006]

I would also like to add that a Liberal victory in this upcoming election would be a dream come true for seperatists in both Alberta and Quebec.

If you're worried about the break up of Canada, then you should be voting Conservative because a vote for the Liberals "is" a vote for seperation. Three ways.

 

[I think not]

12 years for ANY government is way too long in power, thank god we have term limits in the US, I can't even imagine another 4 years with Bush 8O

 

[Nascar_James]

Re: RE: Canada's Conservatives, Liberals Tied in Latest Poll

fascist

adj : relating to or characteristic of fascism; "fascist propaganda" [syn: fascistic] n : an adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views

as they say: if the title fits!

amazing how martin can be all the things you said he is and harper is still worse for canada.

enjoy this link! and laugh for once!
http://www.valleyskeptic.com/harper_sponge.html

Yep, the title fits alright ... it fits the Liberal Party!

Fascism definition from the American Heritage Dictionary:

A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism.

Given the high taxes to pay for high levels of welfare and/or taxing the hard working folks to pay for inefficient healthcare and useless government social programs, gun registry ...etc). As we can see, the definition clearly fits the Liberal Party.

 

[Jersay]

To Nascar James, I wouldn't trust any US definition of anything.

Fascism, doesn't go on welfare, they are not concerned about most welfare institutes. They are not concerned about labour, and fascism tries to say that they will lower taxes for the hard-working people. I think you are thinking about socialism there buddy not fascism. Fascism fits Conservatives all the way.

Given the high taxes to pay for high levels of welfare and/or taxing the hard working folks to pay for inefficient healthcare and useless government social programs, gun registry ...etc). As we can see, the definition clearly fits the Liberal Party.

I would also like to add that a Liberal victory in this upcoming election would be a dream come true for seperatists in both Alberta and Quebec.

If you're worried about the break up of Canada, then you should be voting Conservative because a vote for the Liberals "is" a vote for seperation. Three ways.

Now I think both the Liberals and Conservatives are leading up to the seperation of some part of the country. With Harper, good old harper, he will give a seat on cultural institutions to Quebec. And if we go on what IAMCanadian said that we are all different, I am sure the Albertans and the Maritimers, and the Ontarians, and Newfoundlanders among others will complain about they want a seat too. If you claim that Harper is treating all provinces equally he isn't.

And if the Liberals get in Albertans will say, oh well, they didn't vote my way so I am going to seperate. Now that is fascism. You don't vote the way I am going to vote, so I will throw a fit and then seperate from you you eastern (censored).

Harper doesn't know anything about seperation in Quebec. Martin isn't concerned with seperation in Alberta, and only Layton is trying to keep everyone together, if you don't believe look at the English debate. Therefore, Harper and Martin will lead to seperitism.

Just to note, why would Conservatives not be corrupt bags of crap, just look at the first four letters in their Party name, CONS therefore conservatives want to elect Cons to office.

 

[Breakthrough2006]

To Nascar James, I wouldn't trust any US definition of anything

So now your hate for anything American transcends into lexicons and dictionaries.

And if the Liberals get in Albertans will say, oh well, they didn't vote my way so I am going to seperate. Now that is fascism. You don't vote the way I am going to vote, so I will throw a fit and then seperate from you you eastern (censored).

If it were only that simple. There's been an undeniable long line of western alienation. To pass this off as simply a hissy fit because Canada didn't vote the way Alberta did is dishonest.

Harper doesn't know anything about seperation in Quebec. Martin isn't concerned with seperation in Alberta,

How do you figure Harper desn't know anything about seperation in Quebec? Because he didn't grow up there? We've had a major portion of out latest PMers come out of Quebec to no avail. Quebecers are pissed off at the Liberals, and the Liberals only.

Now Martin doesn't know anything about Western seperation would be a more accurate observation.

 

[Jersay]

Now I don't hate everything American. I just hate everything that has to do with a conservative-republican perspective in American politics, especially the warcriminal Bush.

No, the first seperatism of the West started with the Metis who thought that their rights were not being recognized, which they haven't. Then this National Energy Plan, and Trudeau and his children fingering the west didn't help. However, western alienation is a half-truth.

No you don't have to grow up there to no about Quebec seperatism. However, when you don't even show interest in Quebec, in his first stop over to announce his Quebec candidates he had someone else do it, you know nothing about Quebec seperatism. Unlike Alberta, which has the majority 'culture', Quebec has a real claim for seperation, Alberta doesn't on cultural themes. So, someone doesn't follow my conservative values and maintains Universal healthcare and human rights, boo hoo.

Now, I can say these things about Alberta because I lived in that place for four years. *Shutter*

Ah, so you did not comment on the post about Harper and him giving Quebec seats in cultural institutions, under your ideaology of equal, that's not equal.

 

[Jersay]

How do you figure Harper desn't know anything about seperation in Quebec? Because he didn't grow up there? We've had a major portion of out latest PMers come out of Quebec to no avail. Quebecers are pissed off at the Liberals, and the Liberals only.

Answer me this, if Harper knew anything about Quebec seperation, why is his party at 7%. I believe the Mulroney cons, lost Quebec support with their own scandals, and it doesn't seem to be coming back anytime soon, if ever.

 

[Colpy]

How do you figure Harper desn't know anything about seperation in Quebec? Because he didn't grow up there? We've had a major portion of out latest PMers come out of Quebec to no avail. Quebecers are pissed off at the Liberals, and the Liberals only.

Answer me this, if Harper knew anything about Quebec seperation, why is his party at 7%. I believe the Mulroney cons, lost Quebec support with their own scandals, and it doesn't seem to be coming back anytime soon, if ever.

Quebecers, over the last half century, have demonstrated that they will not vote for anyone not from Quebec.

That is why, since Trudeau won in 1968, every prime minister that served for a year has been from Quebec.

This is a trend that needs to be broken.

 

[the caracal kid]

"Caracal kid you keep blasting us with you Harper the neocon, bush jr, scary, economy destroying crap......but why. Because of a government in power close to a decade and a half ago..... there is a reason that Canada does not elect NDP governments....there is also a reason why Canadians are reluctant to give the CPC a try however I think things are changing and your fear tactics are not working anymore."

incorrect. my views on the cons have nothing to do with the libs. if you read my previous post you would have seen i don't agree with the libs but hey, binary thought is an easier approach, isn't. Just cast someone where it is easier to make judgements, even if they are baseless! "you are with us or against us", "muslim or infidel". great!

And as Jersay said, separation was given its biggest boost because of the CONS! Do you remember where the bloc came from? Do you remember where Bouchard sat before forming the bloc? Do you remember anything about policy, corruption, etc prior to the chretien years? You want to paint the cons as this wonderful party of clean upright do-gooders and that is just a blatent lie. The worst thing is that harper is worst than any con prior! This is coming from somebody that admits to the actions of previous cons that were good moves, somebody that SUPPORTED MULRONEY an many issues. So stop trying to avoid the real issues with Harper and his pack by painting me as a liberal, or is all you can do is mimic the lame behaviours of your chosen mesiah?

Harper merely drudges up old failed con ideas and tries to resell them. His version of progress is to go backwards. You gripe about taxes, and yet you support the finacial mismanagement plan of Harper. Do you remember Mulroney's debts? With harper's fiscal plans you have one of the following coming: cuts to plans, massive debt, new taxes, or he is lieing to get votes.

 

[Colpy]

Harper is not Mulroney.

Harper is fiscally responsible.

I love how people keep saying the PCs were taken over by Reform one minute, and then try to saddle the CPC with Mulroney's record the next minute.

Mulroney was a Red Tory, the antithesis of everything Reform.

In fact, in my opinion he was a Liberal in a blue suit.

So, as I keep asking, which is it?

 

[the caracal kid]

harper is fiscally responsible?

where ever did you get that idea? and please don't tell me it is because harper said so or because he has a degree in economics.

as for the rest, we have discussed this before. would you prefer i compare harps to manning, to the deif, or somebody else? We can dig up the history of cons in canada back to the beginning if you like.

 

[Roy]

Harper is not Mulroney.

Harper is fiscally responsible.

I love how people keep saying the PCs were taken over by Reform one minute, and then try to saddle the CPC with Mulroney's record the next minute.

Mulroney was a Red Tory, the antithesis of everything Reform.

In fact, in my opinion he was a Liberal in a blue suit.

So, as I keep asking, which is it?

good point

ncorrect. my views on the cons have nothing to do with the libs. if you read my previous post you would have seen i don't agree with the libs but hey, binary thought is an easier approach, isn't. Just cast someone where it is easier to make judgements, even if they are baseless! "you are with us or against us", "muslim or infidel". great!

where did I imply that you are a lib.... actualy it was a comment about the NDP more than anything

 

[the caracal kid]

roy, it seems lately the argument fallen back on most often is that if you question Harper you are buying into some liberal anti-harper rhetoric. I don't pay attention to any of the party attacks on one another because they are just that; rhetoric.

I base my position on the Harperites on their own actions, words, postions, etc.

 

[Calberty]

Lenin - look alike,

Boat Boy

or Fascist Ontarian now in Alberta,

I will still vote for the NDP. I do agree that they will have to open up their base to middle-class people, but I don't know about opening it up to the rich, it might be influenced like the Conservatives and especially the Liberals are.

Opening up to the rich? Do some research on NDP leaders. Especially Mr Premature Jack G. Layton's predecessor...a multi-millionaire family.

 

[Nascar_James]

No you don't have to grow up there to no about Quebec seperatism. However, when you don't even show interest in Quebec, in his first stop over to announce his Quebec candidates he had someone else do it, you know nothing about Quebec seperatism. Unlike Alberta, which has the majority 'culture', Quebec has a real claim for seperation, Alberta doesn't on cultural themes. So, someone doesn't follow my conservative values and maintains Universal healthcare and human rights, boo hoo.

Alberta and Quebec share more common ground than most people think. Both are fed up with the Federal government interferring in areas of jurisdiction that should clearly be handled at the provincial level. Both want real control in health care, being able to fully adopt private health care if so desired.

Here in the US, states are given greater control in governing their own affairs as each state has it's own unique character. Example, on the issue of Capital Punishment, each state has it's own laws.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Canada's Conservatives, Liberals Tied in Latest Poll

harper is fiscally responsible?

where ever did you get that idea? and please don't tell me it is because harper said so or because he has a degree in economics.

as for the rest, we have discussed this before. would you prefer i compare harps to manning, to the deif, or somebody else? We can dig up the history of cons in canada back to the beginning if you like.

Because Harper said so. Actually, I have no evidence of his fiscal responsibilty, it is just what the party claims, I sort of take that as truth unless there is evidence to the contrary. I mean, face it, the feds are awash in cash today.

Really, though, what makes you think he is not fiscally responsible?

 

[Roy]

RE: Canada's Conservative

I think that if each province is given more power it would probably lead to less isolation and better national unity. I am all for giving provinces more power and control of its affairs.... a kind of decentralization. The problem with isolation and regionalism is that if you live on the praries or the maratimes, sometimes your opinions are looked over because the larger urban centers and provinces get all the attention.

If Quebec wants to legalize prostitution then let them do it.....if Alberta wants no gun registy and looser firearm laws then let them do it.....if Ontario wants to ban handguns and have their own gun registry then let them do it........If BC wants to legalize marajuanna then let em do it......if Sask wants to ban SSM then let them do it..... I think this would lead to a Canada where provinces have way more character and it would become a much more interesting country.....

 

[the caracal kid]

colpy,
i think harper is fiscally irresponsible because he has no plans on how he is going to fund his spending, especially when he is at the same time promising tax cuts (tax cuts which will prove ineffectual - and before you say i am beating on harpie again i will for the record state i supported the GST under Mulroney, i agreed with the libs when they admitted they should keep it)

roy,
i too want a decentralized federal government. a much smaller federal government that is more directly linked to the interests of the provinces. I view the role of the feds as that of a standards setting coalition of the provinces, a united voice on international issues, the authority on settling disputes between provinces, and the authority on interprovincial exchange. Sask could not rule out SSM because it would violate the canadian charter that guarentees the equality of all. If more freedom were given to the provinces, there would be reduced talk of separation, not more. It is only the strong federalists that think keeping a tight leash on the provinces will hold the country together when what they are really doing is just creating more resentment.

 

[bluealberta]

as for the rest, we have discussed this before. would you prefer i compare harps to manning, to the deif, or somebody else? We can dig up the history of cons in canada back to the beginning if you like.

...just as long as your history includes the records of the liberal ministers who have been forced to resign, going all the way back to the poster child of the far left, when Pearson had four of his ministers resign due to scandal.

Long ago history is just that, long ago. Recent history of the liberals is what is on trial here, given that Martin is running on his record, or so he claims. Based on the recent record of Adscam and now Income Trust, recent history suggests that Martin and the Libs should be turfed as soon as possible. And we won't even touch the Chretien despicable years. :twisted:

 

[bluealberta]

Alberta and Quebec share more common ground than most people think. Both are fed up with the Federal government interferring in areas of jurisdiction that should clearly be handled at the provincial level. Both want real control in health care, being able to fully adopt private health care if so desired.

This is exactly true. Both provinces want the feds out of areas which are the jurisdiction of the provinces, AS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION.. In that regard, we agree. In other areas, well, Quebec still gets a rather large chunk of Alberta money...... :wink: