High Ho it's off to the polls we go.

[SirJosephPorter]

No Sir Joe, Canadians did not give Chrétien back to back majorities. Ontario and Quebec did. Look at how few seats the liberals got in most of Canada.

Really taxslave? And how does that negate my statement that Canada gave him three back to back majorities? Are not Ontario and Quebec part of Canada? Anyway, it wasn’t so much Québec as it was Ontario. Out of 103 seats in Ontario, Liberals got at least 100 each of the three times. When you pick up that many seats in one province, it is easy enough to pick up the rest elsewhere.

 

[Goober]

Just because most people think something is right, doesn't make it right.

It does in a democracy when it comes to politics, Anna. In politics, if people think that somebody is a good leader, then he is a good leader. People expressed their opinion of Chrétien by giving him three back to back majorities. They expressed their opinion of Mulroney when they gave PC party two seats.

If he isn't an outright crook he has the attitude of one.

Now here you may have something, he was a mean street fighter. He fought dirty and he fought to win. Harper has some of that, without possessing the charisma and peoples skill that Chrétien possessed.

SJP
Would using the RCMP as his personal Police Force qualify him as having the character and qualities of leaders of Banana Republics?

 

[pegger]

SJP
Would using the RCMP as his personal Police Force qualify him as having the character and qualities of leaders of Banana Republics?

Yes. Harper would definately fit this description.

 

[Goober]

Yes. Harper would definately fit this description.

Pegger –Noticed the right hand in the air – is that some sort of symbolism or are you grasping at straws. Go back in time to a court case that the Govt lost – It slammed the RCMP and the Govt –

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/chretien/shawinigan.html

 

[pegger]

Pegger –Noticed the right hand in the air – is that some sort of symbolism or are you grasping at straws. Go back in time to a court case that the Govt lost – It slammed the RCMP and the Govt –

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/chretien/shawinigan.html

Please find one quote of mine where I ever support Chretien.

Harper has proven that he is no better than Chretien. That is my point.

 

[Ron in Regina]

No Sir Joe, Canadians did not give Chrétien back to back majorities. Ontario and Quebec did. Look at how few seats the liberals got in most of Canada.

Really taxslave? And how does that negate my statement that Canada gave him three back to back majorities? Are not Ontario and Quebec part of Canada? Anyway, it wasn’t so much Québec as it was Ontario. Out of 103 seats in Ontario, Liberals got at least 100 each of the three times. When you pick up that many seats in one province, it is easy enough to pick up the rest elsewhere.

Ontario & Quebec are Parts of Canada, but NOT all of Canada. The issue
being pointed out (by yourself) was that Ontario & Quebec decide what
Government the rest of Canada must endure between elections. The rest
of the country outside of Ontario & Quebec might not consider themselves
as just elsewhere, and might be very tired of being considered colonies of
Ontario & Quebec, and would like a say in their own governance Federally.

I'm outside of Ontario & Quebec, and I know that the election is usually decided
before the polls open out here, but I still go and vote hoping that my little part
(or my entire provinces little part) might make a differance.

 

[Goober]

Yes. Harper would definately fit this description.

Pegger – I did not dispute that and to tell you the truth did not give a shiiite – I value truth and honesty –
My post then yours post was as follows:

Quote:
“Quoting Goober
SJP
Would using the RCMP as his personal Police Force qualify him as having the character and qualities of leaders of Banana Republics?

Yes. Harper would definitely fit this description.”

Can you provide evidence of this?

 

[Goober]

So the question arises – Will Jack make a deal, bending over and giving one to the taxpayer in a spot we are all endeared to –No not our assess, they all screw that - Our wallets – And will Harper agree?

 

[AlbertaBlue]

Now why would I do that? I don’t go in for the borrow and spend philosophy of the conservatives, that is you. After asking you twice if you would still support lower taxes if spending cuts were not possible, you refused to answer. So I can only conclude that you would want lower taxes even if spending cannot be cut, leading to deficit and debt.

So evidently you also subscribe to the classical borrow and spend conservative philosophy. So you would support Bush, not me. If spending cannot be cut, I would strongly oppose any tax cuts.

No, what I stated clearly was pay as you go. If you can cut unnecessary spending, then you can lower taxes. It is not reduce taxes first, it is cut spending, leading to less expenses, which require less income, ergo, lower taxes.

 

[AlbertaBlue]

No, no, no...get it right...Canada ends at Steeles Ave. to the north, Lake Ontario to the south, Scarborough Bluffs to the east, and 427 to the west.

Okay, forgot that!!LOL

 

[AlbertaBlue]

There is nothing complicate about it, it is a simple way. And when deciding whether to call an election, the main considerations should not be whether it will be a bit inconvenient to claim a particular tax credit.

One could argue whether we need an election, but the tax credit is not relevant to the election, especially since it will be granted whether we have an election or not.

we do not need an election, or the resulting chaos that it will cause, both at home and on the world markets.

Chaos in the world markets? Are you serious? You give Canada too much importance. Rest of the world (including USA) probably won’t even notice that we have an election in Canada. Impact on markets will be zero (unless something catastrophic happens, like NDP getting a majority).

Anyway, gotta to. I enjoy talking to you, but our times don’t really match, by the time you start stirring, I am ready for bed.

Any unnecessary disruption in our political structure at this point of our very early economic recovery will have a negative effect, at least short term. World markets like stability. Interest rates may go up, our dollar may drop, or any number of other results of a political disruption.

 

[AlbertaBlue]

That'd be fine with me as long as the maritimes and territories are with us. I am pretty sure the rest of us could survive quite nicely without ON and QC. Boy would they squawk. lol

Better be careful, you will be branded as a Western Separatist (although I like the idea of the martimes and territories, we do not have to take Danny Williams, do we??:angryfire:

 

[AlbertaBlue]

There is nothing complicate about it, it is a simple way. And when deciding whether to call an election, the main considerations should not be whether it will be a bit inconvenient to claim a particular tax credit.

One could argue whether we need an election, but the tax credit is not relevant to the election, especially since it will be granted whether we have an election or not.

we do not need an election, or the resulting chaos that it will cause, both at home and on the world markets.

Chaos in the world markets? Are you serious? You give Canada too much importance. Rest of the world (including USA) probably won’t even notice that we have an election in Canada. Impact on markets will be zero (unless something catastrophic happens, like NDP getting a majority).

Anyway, gotta to. I enjoy talking to you, but our times don’t really match, by the time you start stirring, I am ready for bed.

I want to make one more point off this post. If, as you claim, the rest of the world does not give us much importance on the world market, is it safe to say that the world wide recession, then is not Harper's fault? And if this is true, does it not stand to reason, then, that IGGY is dead wrong when he is blaming Harper for the deficit (caused mostly by stimulus spending the Fibs demanded for supporting the govt), and Harper is not responsible for higher unemployment? Just wondering!!!

 

[AlbertaBlue]

Are you kidding? Ontario and Québec can exist quite well on their own. Perhaps they may form some loose federation (with trade agreements), perhaps they may not. But they both have the population and resources to make it on their own. Countries with comparable populations (Sweden etc.) are doing quite well.

But the West and the Maritimes get together? A more motley bunch cannot be imagined. There is animosity between the West and Maritimes; Harper has called Maritimers a lazy bunch.

In addition, the Western provinces have very little in common with each other. Alberta hates BC, because BC is much bigger and much more liberal than Alberta. There is no love lost between Alberta and Saskatchewan either, Saskatchewan routinely elects NDP governments, NDP is really not much different from Communists to Alberta.

And the two parts will be separated by thousands of kilometers (like East and West Pakistan were). I would give the deformed, misshapen entity perhaps three years before it breaks up.

Maritimes will slowly be swallowed up by USA, one by one. Alberta of course will be swallowed up by USA, they want Alberta’s oil. As to others, USA probably won’t want them, especially the Republicans. They will be happy to have Alberta, but they wouldn’t want other three provinces, which elect NDP (Communist to Republicans) governments.

Ontario and Quebec will do just fine, as a loose federation or on their own. But the West and Maritimes existing together in one country? What a joke.

UUhhhh, just a minute.........You may not have noticed the free trade agreements between Alberta, BC and Sask? Not bad for people who hate each other. Also, I believe the Sask govt is now a conservative type govt, the Sask Party? Threw the Dippers out on their ear due to way too high taxes and spending. I would dare say that right now, the three most western provinces not only get along, but have so much in common with resources, etc., that they do form a large economic block that the rest of the country should not ignore. I have been following this quietly for some time now, and it is quite interesting how things have changed over the last few years. And BTW, although the BC govt is a Liberal govt, it is almost center-right, not left.

 

[mit]

Maybe this would be a better way to govern our country

**Forming the Government of the NWT.​

Here is some interesting information on how the NWT government is formed from their web site. It sounds kinda neat - but I don't think that it would work well for Ontario or Quebec... but that is just my opinion.
The Northwest Territories is one of only two federal, provincial or territorial jurisdictions in Canada that operates under the consensus system of government rather than the more familiar system of party politics.
Within this system all 14 Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) are elected as independents in their constituencies.
Once elected, the MLAs travel to the Legislative Assembly where a territorial leadership meeting is held. The first order of business is the election of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.
After the election of the Speaker, Members turn their focus to the election of the Premier. In the 12th and 13th Legislative Assemblies, Members voted to move the selection of the Premier into a public forum.
In the last selection process candidates were nominated, they were given 20 minutes to present their platforms, and then the floor was open for questions from MLAs. Each MLA was restricted in the number of questions he/she could ask of the candidates vying for Premier. Once all questions were asked a secret ballot vote was held. The candidate who garners 50 per cent plus one of the votes is selected Premier.
The election of five Cabinet Ministers is next on the agenda. Again candidates are nominated and given an opportunity to outline their platforms before a secret ballot vote is held.
The consensus system of governing is more in keeping with the way that aboriginal peoples have traditionally made decisions. Unanimous agreement is not necessary for decisions to be made, motions passed, and legislation enacted. A simple majority carries the vote.
Ordinary Members, those who are not on Cabinet, become the "unofficial opposition" in the House. They are responsible, through questioning and through Standing Committees, for making the Government accountable and responsive to the people of the Northwest Territories.

 

[Kreskin]

Layton was on record today or yesterday saying he doesn't want a fall election.

 

[earth_as_one]

I want to make one more point off this post. If, as you claim, the rest of the world does not give us much importance on the world market, is it safe to say that the world wide recession, then is not Harper's fault? And if this is true, does it not stand to reason, then, that IGGY is dead wrong when he is blaming Harper for the deficit (caused mostly by stimulus spending the Fibs demanded for supporting the govt), and Harper is not responsible for higher unemployment? Just wondering!!!

Think you are clever seeing through those lies? Of course the Conservatives aren't responsible for Canada's current deficit or the recession. But if the Conservatives were the opposition, they'd make the same claims about the government. So what does that prove?

If you were really clever, you'd know that Harper supports the same type of financial deregulation that led to disaster in the US and Europe.
Harper government pushed financial deregulation | rabble.ca

Canada's banks are relatively well off right now despite Harper.

 

[earth_as_one]

Layton was on record today or yesterday saying he doesn't want a fall election.

Which means Layton is more politically shrewd than Ignatieff. Canadians may punish Ignatieff if they believe he needlessly caused an election.

 

[Kreskin]

Think you are clever seeing through those lies? Of course the Conservatives aren't responsible for Canada's current deficit or the recession. But if the Conservatives were the opposition, they'd make the same claims about the government. So what does that prove?

If you were really clever, you'd know that Harper supports the same type of financial deregulation that led to disaster in the US and Europe.
Harper government pushed financial deregulation | rabble.ca

Canada's banks are relatively well off right now despite Harper.

I don't know..they took the unpopular position of taxing Income Trusts (or will be taxed). It was a very popular investment for the wealthy but every corp in Canada was converting to a trust so we'd eventually have no tax base. Those were hugely popular in Alberta. That showed me they are more than just being in the back pockets of the wealthy.

 

[AnnaG]

Just because most people think something is right, doesn't make it right.

It does in a democracy when it comes to politics, Anna. In politics, if people think that somebody is a good leader, then he is a good leader. People expressed their opinion of Chrétien by giving him three back to back majorities. They expressed their opinion of Mulroney when they gave PC party two seats.

You're nuts. Someone already mentioned Canadians didn't give him back to back majorities and yet you insist he did. Put your research where your mouth is. Read this: Jean Chrétien - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And the only reason that ON and QC gave him majorities was because world economics was really good. And it seems to me that westerners thought ON and QC deserve part of the blame for ADSCAM and suchlike because they voted the little thief in.
Who gives a crap about Bullroney? I'd just as soon forget the idiot, same as aPAULing Martin.

If he isn't an outright crook he has the attitude of one.

Now here you may have something, he was a mean street fighter. He fought dirty and he fought to win. Harper has some of that, without possessing the charisma and peoples skill that Chrétien possessed.

Bull. He was dirty and he was mean but any streetfighter would have used him to mop the pavement with. He is politically savvy is all he is.
The only reason he got a majority in the first place was because Bullroney was a miserable flop beside whom Charles Tupper or John Turner would look awesome. That and the Red Book that Martin wrote which was a pile of balogna, or as Martin himself put it: "Screw the Red Book... Don't tell me what's in the Red Book. I wrote the goddamned thing. And I know that it's a lot of crap."