I am amazed by the left on this board.

[Triple_R]

Re: RE: I am amazed by the left on this board.

Am I the only person who doesn't see how Alberta's economy can be replicated in the rest of the country? Alberta has lots and lots of oil and that industry is the force behind their economy. Without that, their economy wouldn't be anything special and they would certainly have a provincial sales tax.

And no offense meant, but I really wouldn't want the rest of Canada to be just like Alberta. Money-wise it would be nice, but socially speaking I think Alberta is a little too regressive for me.

Fiscals issues are more important than social issues in that a poor person probably cares a lot more about getting a higher-paying job, and getting a tax break, than he does about same-sex marriage.

Almost every region of Canada has great natural resource wealth. Indeed, one of Canada's strengths is its incredible natural resource wealth. Alberta has simply capitalized on that better than any other province has. And you're getting it backwards on the Provincial Sales Tax. It's not that a good economy leads to no Provincial Sales Tax (as we see with the whole of Canada, Canada having a good economy doesn't lead to the abolishment of the GST); it's that no Provincial Sales Tax leads to a good economy.

No offense, but I wonder how many people here have seriously studied Economics. When the rates of consumption rise... when you have a higher demand for a higher supply... that creates jobs. It creates jobs because business owners need to hire more shippers, more cashiers, more stackers, more factory owners, more items to put on the shelves, etc... etc... It has the synergistic effect of making the economy better. Obviously, a lower tax on consumption will lead to a rise in consumption.

I would argue that Mulrooney's introduction of the GST hurt the Canadian economy during the 80s, and that was part of what lead to his party's downfall in the 90s. In sharp contrast, Harper wants to cut the GST, as he recognizes it for the regressive tax that it is. He's learnt not only from his own mistakes, but also from Mulrooney's... which is why I don't see him repeating the mistakes of the Mulrooney era.

 

[jimmoyer]

7) Koyoto.
I am against enshrining private property rights in the constitution.
-----------------------Caracal kid---------------------

Whew !!

That's is so visceral, and so heavy duty.

In a world where the powerful move freely and easily
bending all to their desire, one of the original rights
of the little guy is private property.

Russian Serfdom denied private property.

Eminent Domain takes 10 years in the state
of Connecticut to fight the little
guy to take away his private property.

We know the rich and powerful can take away
anything you have, but I for one like to create
little obstacles like private property rights to be
a speed bump for THEM.

I say deal with it.

We don't want matters like this to be too convenient
for THEM ?

 

[I think not]

The law on private property is different in Canada jim, caracal kid has explained that on another thread, it's basically a long term lease as I understand it.

 

[the caracal kid]

jim,

first you need to see what "private property" is in canada.

this ammendment would not be benefitial to the "little guy" as the little guy does not really own the land now anyway and this does not change that! As a private person in canada, you own only the rights to the top 1 inch (varies by province) of topsoil. Now guess who has first dibs on everything beneath the topsoil? The provicial government and its charters. All this proposal will do is cause strife between the provinces and the feds, and if it is passed will not really do anything for the little guy. It will open up opportunities for "big guys" though that are in a position to take on governments, and create issues for the soverenty of our lands.

 

[Triple_R]

Re: RE: I am amazed by the left on this board.

Triple_R,
in fairness to you, here is why I am against Stephen Harper. (yes, this includes his history but it does dictate something of his ideology).

1) i do not support increased funding of the military. in fact i would like to see the military become more specialized and smaller.
2) GST: reducing this tax will prove to be ineffectual as many economists have pointed out. The economy is strong now so while it can sustain the 7% the 7% should be collected and used to pay off debt.
3) SSM: yes, this is an issue that should have been left settled. I am for the full equality of all citizens of canada and see Harper's position as a accepting of a second class citizen.
4) crime: now here i am 50/50: unfortunately, there is a need for a form of punishment for some crimes, but the emphasis should be on proactive methods to preventing crimes from occuring in the first place. Harper's approach is completely reactionary and only would lead to more people in prisons.
5) Security: I am opposed to the escalation of arms in arming the customs agents. Armed agents will do little to address real "threats" to canadian soil.
6) Health-care guarentee. I fail to see how this "guarentee" will solve the real issues that address the healcare of canadians. This is nothing more than a "candy" th make you feel better about healthcare while neglecting the core issues.
7) Koyoto.
8) I am against enshrining private property rights in the constitution.
9) Office of Director of Public Procecutions: too americian and contrary to the canadian way of law.
10) the disparity between a man that claims he desires less government and his proposals for more government, without the funding (according to many economists).

Let me address those one by one...

1) You may be right. However, a couple points to ponder...

a) A smaller, more specialized Canadian military would leave us more dependent on the Americans. Is that something that you're comfortable with?

b) Paul Martin himself bragged on CTV that he's probably given more funds to the military than any other Canadian Prime Minister has. If you're against high amounts of military funding, that works against Martin as much as it does Harper.


2) Canada's economy may be strong, but there's much room for improvement. In my own riding, we have an unemployment rate of well over 10%... and most of those employed work at minimum wage, or close to it. This is simply unacceptable, in my view - there shouldn't be a riding in Canada with the unemployment rate above 10%. Perhaps this is why I'm as supportive of the GST as I am... I can easily do the math, and see the great positive impact that cutting it can have on my riding. Why will cutting the GST prove ineffectual? My own study of economics argues otherwise. As for the Canadian national debt, the only province in Canada with out a provincial debt is Alberta. Harper's economic policies are much closer to Alberat's than Martin's is.

3) Equality is not threatened by different terminology. If it was, we would not have 'man', 'woman', 'male', 'female', 'boy', and 'girl'. Almost nobody questions that women are equal to men... and we didn't need to redefine anything to achieve this relatively new outlook on male/female relations. Likewise, we don't need to have a particular definition for marriage to guarantee equality rights. Altering terminology is the most that Harper could hope to achieve, let alone seek to achieve.

4) More people in prisons mean fewer dangerous elements out and about Canadian streets, cities, and communities. When I hear about "proactive measures to preventing crimes", all I hear are vague generalities. I hear nothing concrete. I'd rather have concrete "reactionary" politices than vague pro-active policies that are doomed to failure.

5) Armed agents are obviously better armed to deal with threats to Canada. I have to admit that I don't see your logic here.

6) Yes, I agree that Harper is weak here. So is Martin. You see? Almost every area that Harper is weak in, so is Martin. However, there's at least a few areas where Harper gets it right, and Martin is wrong. There's a few areas that Layton gets it right, and Harper and Martin both get it wrong.

7) Kyoto is a noble intention, but the actual agreement is pathetic, to be frank. It puts far too much emphasis on the pollution coming from North American and Europe, and lets major polluters like China and India get off essentially scott free. I would warmly embrace a more balanced Kyoto agreement, but as it is, it would simply have the effect of greatly empowering China. I don't particularly want a more powerful totalitarian China on the world stage.

8) Why?

9) I admittably haven't heard of this, or if I have, I haven't taken note of this. I may read into it later.

10) A fair criticism, perhaps, but I don't see where Martin is any better.

 

[I think not]

Caracal Kid

I have one very easy question for you, just so I can understand what your stance is. Would you be in favor of property rights as defined by the US Constitution? In other words, the land you buy, is really your land, anything below it and up to 1999 feet in elevation if I remember correctly. Or are you jst outright against private proprty rights?

 

[Triple_R]

The caracal kid - By the way, I really want to thank you for a fair and honest debate on the actual issues. Well done.

 

[zoofer]

Far and away the most hatred I've seen on this board is from leftists to Stephen Harper. I read the words of the left, and it's like reading wild-eyed, sleep-deprived, diatribes screaming "The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!" or some such nonsense.

I have seen nonsensical wild innuendo that would make tabloid's blush. I have seen the most outlandish, and rediculious, criticisms, and insults, and outright demonization, imaginable. You people really do believe each and every one of those 12 Liberal attack ads, don't you? You people really do believe that Stephen Harper is some sort of scary boogey man here to bring, I suppose, a fasicst military-supported theocracy into Canada.

The most laughable is the argument that the rest of Canada wouldn't want to be like Alberta. Good grief... have you completely lost sense of reality? The Alberta economy is absolutely booming. It actually has fewer workers than it needs. The economy is so strong in that province that it needs people from other parts of Canada to work there simply to achieve basic human resources demands. Canada's economy should be so lucky as to be as strong as Alberta's.

You know what... I'm almost positive that you're all wrong. Completely positive. You people have allowed your blind hatred of anything, and everything, conservative, to blind you to reality. The reality is, folks, that it's perfectly logical for a political leader to shift to the center as the result of his former political party combining with a more moderate party. Harper's new moderate views is not a facade... it is a reality naturally brought about through uniting with the old centrist PCs.

You know what... I'm going to enjoy my stay here. I'm going to enjoy watching the predictable upsurge in the Canadian economy brought about by lowering the GST (just as Alberta's complete and utter lack of a Provincial Sales Tax helps that province mightily). I'm going to enjoy watching Harper govern moderately, and refraining from making substantial legislative alterations to hot button issues. I'm going to enjoy watching the vehement left on this board all eat crow, or look stupid for failing to admit that they were wrong.

Your unwarranted viciousness towards Harper has made up my mind. I'm voting Conservative this election.

Don't count on the Lefties admiting they were wrong.
Just like the loony Democrats in the States, once their rants and accusations fizzle out they blithly drop it and search for a new issue.

 

[FiveParadox]

The Honourable Stephen Harper

Triple_R, just because I don't agree with Mr. Harper, doesn't mean I can't respect him simultaneously. As for the issue of a façade, I do not believe that he could possibly have become as centrist as he now seems, in comparison to his once extreme-right orientation; I cannot place any blame on him for this, however, as I am sure that any "turn-around" in this respect would have been on the advice of his campaign advisors and strategists.

As for the title of "honourable," Stephen Harper is a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council for Canada and, as such, is entitled to the style; not every Leader of the Opposition has been so appointed and, therefore, I would contend that he deserves it.

As for the platform of the Conservative Party of Canada, yes, I do oppose a majority of the platform. As for decreases in taxes, I oppose any such decreases until such a time as we are in a position of having a negligible debt. In terms of social policy, I am aligned quite contrary, in my opinion, to the alignment of the Tories. In relation to the Canadian Armed Forces, I would favour a small but effective force, more "specialised" in nature, if you will. If there are any specific Conservative platform points that you would like my opinion on, I would be more than happy to field them through private messages or on the open forum.

So, I respectfully refute your claim (in relation to me, personally), Triple_R.

 

[the caracal kid]

ITN,

no, i am not completely opposed to private property. I view it as something necessitated by other aspects of society that we have not yet moved beyond.

Triple_R,
don't view my dislike for Harper as an endorsement of Martin. I see canada as suffering from a complete lack of leadership perhaps indicitive of the beginnings of the failure of our political system.
on the military, we will never rival the large forces of the world and i don't think we should try. We should work to become specialized at dealing with specific areas (rescue, anti-terrorism, civil protection, etc). We are not a warring country and our forces should reflect that nature.
there is always room for improvement within the economy. unfortunately our economy is designed to include unemployed.
tougher laws means more criminals locked up for longer times, but it fails to fix things. I also admitedly do not see the value in locking people up without working to re-integrate them into society nor do i see the value in not taking more preventative actions. We can identify potential problems and address them. True, we can't catch or solve all potentials, but we should do what we can to prevent crime.
i see armed agents as a symbolism of what canada is (along with more police, etc). Escalation of armed "protectors" creates more paranoia than peace. Given the size of our borders, the real dangers to canada will cross freely elsewhere.

the main difference between Martin and Harper is their histories. Martin so far managed the finances well. Now what his new spending spree would do is uncertian, just as is Harper's. I really have little use for either of them and see the most palatable outcome being a minority government of some sort. Of all the parties, i prefer the bloc (both policy-wise sans separation, and Duceppe).

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: I am amazed by the left on this board.

jim,

first you need to see what "private property" is in canada.

this ammendment would not be benefitial to the "little guy" as the little guy does not really own the land now anyway and this does not change that! As a private person in canada, you own only the rights to the top 1 inch (varies by province) of topsoil. Now guess who has first dibs on everything beneath the topsoil? The provicial government and its charters. All this proposal will do is cause strife between the provinces and the feds, and if it is passed will not really do anything for the little guy. It will open up opportunities for "big guys" though that are in a position to take on governments, and create issues for the soverenty of our lands.

RE the highlighed portion: Not true. Mineral rights can be owned by the original land owners. I know, because even though the land my dad owned was sold after he passed away over 10 years ago, we still own the rights to the minerals on that land.

 

[the caracal kid]

then you were fortunate enough to have secured them. securing such rights is separate from the ownership though, which is the point. Had you not secured them, somebody else could have secured them "right out from under you" (and it does happen to people who don't realize that land ownership and rights to what are beneath the land are separate).

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: I am amazed by the left on this board.

then you were fortunate enough to have secured them. securing such rights is separate from the ownership though, which is the point. Had you not secured them, somebody else could have secured them "right out from under you" (and it does happen to people who don't realize that land ownership and rights to what are beneath the land are separate).

Its called taking responsibility for yourself, something my dad did, and something my dad instilled in us. My brothers and sisters own the mineral rights, and can lease or sell them as we pleased. This is and has been the case for some time. Of course, this is is also in Alberta, which believes in individual rights, as opposed to the LIberal government of Canada which believes in State rights and State ownership. Very Soviet like.

 

[Cosmo]

Re: RE: I am amazed by the left on this board.

Its called taking responsibility for yourself, something my dad did, and something my dad instilled in us. My brothers and sisters own the mineral rights, and can lease or sell them as we pleased. This is and has been the case for some time. Of course, this is is also in Alberta, which believes in individual rights, as opposed to the LIberal government of Canada which believes in State rights and State ownership. Very Soviet like.

Hate to break it to you, Blue, but I was raised by those very principles myself. And here I am ... a left leaning person. I started working two jobs the summer I was 13 years old, and have been a bit of a workaholic since. I recently have run into health issues, but it's been hell on wheels getting used to that. Just because my politics are left leaning does not make me personally irresponsible. You really need to examine that belief!!

 

[S-Ranger]

Re: RE: I am amazed by the left on this board.

Canadian Content > Federal Elections
I am amazed by the left on this board.

Well, the thread started a whole 3 days ago and is already seven pages long, maybe 8 by now, so who knows what the topic is on page 8 where this will end up (could be bowling), but whatever.

Generally, I feel the same away about how the Left
excercises itself so viscerally.

BUT !!

I like to listen to the Left in order to keep my
own understanding more honest.

Don't overreact to the point you cancel everything
the Left says.

I say this to you as a card carrying Republican Conservative from America.

The achilles heel is to completely deny the value
of the opposition.

Ya, it's exactly what is done to whatever you think "the Right" is and is also its achilles heel of everything else. Deny the value of the opposition and that's some achilles heel is it? It's rather obvious and blatant, and typically stupid of the alleged "left" or "right". The way to unite a country is to deny that other people exist; left, right, up, down, diagonally in your little bubble worlds. Nothing personal or it'd be a pm. Define "the left" -- in the Canadas. And "the right" too. Have at it.

The thing about the Canadas is that it's one of the most secular countries on the planet so what "left/Liberal" and "right/Conservative" (capital letters, tends to mean extremes on both ends and they mysteriously meet in the U.S. and the Canadas at both extremes) but mean totally different things here than they do in Jesusland.

Left/Liberal is an ultra-socialist in the Canadas, Right/Conservative is an ultra-capitalist, with the middle being between that, where it's mostly about religion in the U.S., around too many (hard to keep track of with 3 of them and rotating around half the Senate, half the House) federal election circus marketing act campaigns. Haul out a copy of the proper version of the christian bible in a district and it actually means something. It means nothing here, other than in god-buildings, which aren't doing so well.

The ultra-socialists claim to be fiscally conservative, the ultra-capitalists claim to be fiscally conservative here, so that's out when the numbers really add up, as they tend to in various ways.

What do y'all know about the Conference Board of Canada in the U.S.? Hmm? What about the FCM, CTF, IRPP or even the real economic<->socio economic "structure" of the Canadas?

What percentage of real GDP did Alberta have last fiscal year? What about Saskatchewan and Manitoba? What's their population, what markets do they have? What was all primary worth last fiscal year in the Canadas as a percentage of total economic provincial/territorial output? We're all rich due to this:

Gross domestic product at basic prices primary industries
$ constant 1997 (millions) 2004

____________________________________________________________
                                                        % of
INDUSTRY                                       2004-05   All
____________________________________________________________
Agriculture forestry fishing and hunting
  Crop production                               9,998   0.95
  Animal production                             4,215   0.40
  Forestry and logging                          6,880   0.66
  Fishing hunting and trapping                    866   0.08
  Support activities for agriculture
   and forestry                                 1,242   0.12
Agriculture forestry fishing and hunting TOTAL 23,201   2.21
____________________________________________________________
Mining and oil and gas extraction
 Oil and gas extraction                        22,817   2.18

 Mining (except oil and gas)
  Coal mining                                   1,208   0.12
  Metal ore mining                              4,608   0.44
  Non-metallic mineral mining and quarrying     4,730   0.45
  Support activities for mining
   and oil and gas extraction                   5,336   0.51
 ___________________________________________________________
 Mining (except oil and gas) TOTAL             10,546   1.01
____________________________________________________________
Mining and oil and gas extraction TOTAL        38,699   3.69
____________________________________________________________
PRIMARY INDUSTRY TOTALS (ALL)                  61,900   5.90
____________________________________________________________
All industries TOTAL                        1,048,266 100.00
____________________________________________________________

Source: Statistics Canada

5.9 "per cent" of total economic output, before taxes but not excluding subsidies and the Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting NAICS "industry" makes about as much money as it gets in subsidies, so subtract another 2.2 "per cent".

Where does big bad Alberta sit at US$0.85 in the U.S. economy? It's bad enough in this economy:

Real gross domestic product, expenditure-based, by province and territory
millions of chained (1997) dollars

__________________________________________
JURISDICTION                2004  % of GDP
__________________________________________
Ontario                    470,026   42.02
Québec                     234,445   20.96
British Columbia           139,205   12.45

Alberta                    135,837   12.14

Manitoba                    35,136    3.14
Saskatchewan                33,168    2.97
Nova Scotia                 25,271    2.26
New Brunswick               20,867    1.87
Newfoundland & Labrador     15,248    1.36
Northwest Territories        3,833    0.34
Prince Edward Island         3,365    0.30
Yukon Territory              1,206    0.11
Nunavat Territory              862    0.08
__________________________________________
TOTAL                    1,118,474  100.00
__________________________________________
SUMMARY                     2004  % of GDP
__________________________________________
(ON+QC) Total              704,471   62.99
(ON+QC+BC) Total           843,676   75.43

Rest - (ON+QC) Total       414,003   37.01
Rest - (ON+QC+BC) Total    274,798   24.57

Prairie (AB+SK+MB) Totals  204,141   18.25
(SK+MB) Total ^ to AB       68,304    6.11

Atlantic Canadas Total      68,589    6.13
Territories                  5,906    0.53
__________________________________________

* % of GDP is percent of TOTAL, which Statistics Canada doesn't even bother to provide, let alone percentages, let alone a summary. It makes everything far too clear.

Source: Statistics Canada
Date modified (by source): 2006-01-05
Last updated: 2006-01-12

Real Gross State [Domestic] Product (millions of chained 2000 dollars)

______________________________________________________
Rank  State                   2004     GSP% -Previous*
   1  California ......... 1,438,737  13.42	
   2  New York ...........   843,084   7.86  595,653
   3  Texas ..............   803,734   7.50   39,350
   4  Florida ............   543,845   5.07  259,889
   5  Illinois ...........   485,231   4.53   58,614
   6  Pennsylvania .......   427,825   3.99   57,406
   7  Ohio ...............   384,049   3.58   43,776
   8  New Jersey .........   383,725   3.58      324
   9  Michigan ...........   345,980   3.23   37,745
  10  Georgia ............   314,325   2.93   31,655
  11  North Carolina .....   307,601   2.87    6,724
  12  Virginia ...........   299,402   2.79    8,199
  13  Massachusetts ......   298,020   2.78    1,382
  14  Washington .........   238,286   2.22   59,734
  15  Indiana ............   208,434   1.94   29,852
  16  Minnesota ..........   207,793   1.94      641
  17  Maryland ...........   206,375   1.92    1,418
  18  Tennessee ..........   199,547   1.86    6,828
  19  Wisconsin ..........   194,093   1.81    5,454
  20  Arizona ............   187,271   1.75    6,822
  21  Missouri ...........   185,834   1.73    1,437
  22  Colorado ...........   185,169   1.73      665
  23  Connecticut ........   172,355   1.61   12,814
  24  Louisiana ..........   133,289   1.24   39,066
  25  Alabama ............   126,875   1.18    6,414
  26  South Carolina .....   124,137   1.16    2,738
  27  Kentucky ...........   124,079   1.16       58
  28  Oregon .............   121,411   1.13    2,668
  29  Iowa ...............   103,297   0.96   18,114
  30  Oklahoma ...........    96,688   0.90    6,609
  31  Nevada .............    90,350   0.84    6,338
  32  Kansas .............    89,896   0.84      454
  33  Utah ...............    75,098   0.70   14,798
  34  Arkansas ...........    72,812   0.68    2,286
  35  Mississippi ........    68,857   0.64    3,955
  36  District of Columbia    66,871   0.62    1,986
  37  Nebraska ...........    61,216   0.57    5,655
  38  New Mexico .........    56,415   0.53    4,801
  39  Delaware ...........    49,413   0.46    7,002
  40  New Hampshire ......    48,550   0.45      863
  41  Hawaii .............    45,370   0.42    3,180
  42  West Virginia ......    44,310   0.41    1,060
  43  Idaho ..............    40,802   0.38    3,508
  44  Maine ..............    39,536   0.37    1,266
  45  Rhode Island .......    38,017   0.35    1,519
  46  Alaska .............    28,983   0.27    9,034
  47  South Dakota .......    26,774   0.25    2,209
  48  Montana ............    24,654   0.23    2,120
  49  North Dakota .......    21,088   0.20    3,566
  50  Wyoming ............    20,736   0.19      352
  51  Vermont ............    20,608   0.19      128
______________________________________________________
      TOTAL               10,720,847 100.00
______________________________________________________
      SUMMARY                 2004  Region% -Previous*
      SOUTHEAST .......... 2,358,882  22.00	
      MIDEAST ............ 1,977,337  18.44  381,545
      FAR WEST ........... 1,963,101  18.31   14,236
      GREAT LAKES ........ 1,617,825  15.09  345,276
      SOUTHWEST .......... 1,143,925  10.67  473,900
      PLAINS .............   695,886   6.49  448,039
      NEW ENGLAND ........   617,107   5.76   78,779
      ROCKY MOUNTAIN .....   346,477   3.23  270,630
______________________________________________________

All percentages are of the TOTAL (all GSPs) above.

* The "-Previous" column shows how much the difference is from one state (or region) to the next. E.g. California generated $595,653 million ($595.7 billion) more than New York state did in 2004 (CA GSP minus NY GSP, etc. on down) and/or New York generated $595,653 million ($595.7 billion) less than California did. The "SOUTHEAST" region (see explanation including which states are in what regions) generated $381,545 million ($381.5 billion) more than the mideast region (SOUTHEAST minus MIDWEST = $381,545 million, also known as $381.5 billion), etc.

Note that the first "1" in California's 2004 gross state product (GSP and U.S. GDP/GNP are not the same thing, as in you cannot add up all GSPs and get the GDP of the U.S. because GSP excludes all federal civilian and military "assets" from "taxes"/all receipts whether they happen to be called a "tax" or not) is a trillion dollars. Add six zeroes to all numbers above to get millions of dollars. Vermont's GSP (real GSP using constant chained dollars eliminates inflation as opposed to current dollars at current prices/expenses) can be expressed as $20.6 billion or $20,608,000,000 or $20,608 million. The numbers to the left of the first comma (with the exception of CA) are billions of dollars (1,000 million), 1,000 billion is a trillion; dollars or anything else. California is the only state with over a trillion dollars in gross "economic output."

51 may look odd but it's due to the 50 states + District of Columbia (D.C.)

And the first is in appropriately-named "loonies," the above is in US$. The exchange rate is about US$0.85, has been at that average for the last year or so (fiscal 2004-05 above ended on March 31, 2005). US$0.84 for the year before.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis - Regional Economic Accounts

Bureau of Economic Analysis is an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce

And that leaves legislation around social policy determining what is "left" and "right" with religion playing no part in any government/civil affairs here ... but since so many "Canadians" watch American this and that; they don't know what left and right even is -- here.

Equal marriage (the contract that can only be settled and nullified by a court of law; not any religious organization, parking lot or supermarket) is not a religious issue and cannot be a religious issue in the Canadas. It's one of the most secular countries on the planet. Religious organizations have to say about anything when it comes to civil affairs; though they do try to.

And that's part of what Harper is trying to change (good luck) and it's what we are not going to allow to change. 60% of the population of the Canadas lives on 2.2% of its land from Detroit (across the Detroit River to a city called Windsor in South Ontario) along highway 401 and Autoroute 20 ("Main Street") to Montreal from this end, to Quebec City on the Montreal end.

It's called the Windsor-Québec City Corridor, or Québec City-Windsor Corridor and aside from the rest, which is what causes it to exist, is a transportation/communications corridor much like the Northwest Corridor from D.C. to Boston in the U.S. but instead of Amtrak it's where VIA Rail and most of the Canadas makes the bulk of its money:

Windsor-Québec City Corridor, 2001

Ontario Section
10,706,513 93% of Ontario's population

Québec Section
6,327,354 87% of Quebec's population

Total Population
17,033,867 57% of Canada's population

Source: Statistics Canada 2001 Census

It also has over 60% of the GDP of the Canadas and pays out between 64% and 70% of all federal revenues. And it's the original Canada and it has real land deeds, while the rest of the Canadas (other than Labrador) have jurisdictional boundaries that only exist if we say they exist.

To try to create such a thing, and the cities in it, to scale with and in the U.S., would give you a very clear picture of what this alleged "Canada thing" is; a mostly deserted wasteland and Alberta's economic output is below Oregon's and just above Iowa's (at US$0.85 in real gross state product, from the above); in spot 30.

They think they're bigshots but Libya does much better and has never had billions of dollars from the Windsor-Quebec City Corridor and Lower-Mainland-south Vancouver Island poured into it.

Alberta was a welfare state until 1964, it's owned by American oil companies and investors now and was a pitiful, worthless, prairie/agricultural "province" on socialist welfare handouts that don't exist in the U.S. and it still doesn't even have its own 'state' law enforcement -- it uses the "Royal Canadian Mounted Police" (RCMP), which we sent out temporarily over 100 years ago, on horses, but they're not on horses anymore, they cost quite a lot more money now and big bad Alberta doesn't even pay for its own law enforcement.

It can, but it's too LEFT/socialist to do it.

Only the Ontarios and Quebecs have their own law enforcement from top to bottom, bottom to top, recruiting/academies to pensions and everything in between. Everything else uses the RCMP -- so is socialist/left/liberal -- in the meaning of it here, and it gets much worse than that.

And you probably wouldn't be too happy with a state that had no (visible anyway) state sales tax, debt, was thinking of scrapping its state income tax, had over $100.5 billion (more than that in U.S. terms) sitting around in "conservative surpluses/overtaxation" -- using your taxes to pay for its law enforcement and constantly running to the feds over its own stupidity, every runny nose, demanding your revenues -- and getting them.

Would you refer to that as "right" or "conservative?" Some of them know how to parrot the lines of American "religious fundamentalists" so Americans might see that and mistakenly refer to them as "conservative/right" but they're socialists, which makes them liberal/left no matter what the hell they call themselves in this country.

 

[Triple_R]

Re: The Honourable Stephen Harper

Triple_R, just because I don't agree with Mr. Harper, doesn't mean I can't respect him simultaneously. As for the issue of a façade, I do not believe that he could possibly have become as centrist as he now seems, in comparison to his once extreme-right orientation; I cannot place any blame on him for this, however, as I am sure that any "turn-around" in this respect would have been on the advice of his campaign advisors and strategists.

As for the title of "honourable," Stephen Harper is a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council for Canada and, as such, is entitled to the style; not every Leader of the Opposition has been so appointed and, therefore, I would contend that he deserves it.

As for the platform of the Conservative Party of Canada, yes, I do oppose a majority of the platform. As for decreases in taxes, I oppose any such decreases until such a time as we are in a position of having a negligible debt. In terms of social policy, I am aligned quite contrary, in my opinion, to the alignment of the Tories. In relation to the Canadian Armed Forces, I would favour a small but effective force, more "specialised" in nature, if you will. If there are any specific Conservative platform points that you would like my opinion on, I would be more than happy to field them through private messages or on the open forum.

So, I respectfully refute your claim (in relation to me, personally), Triple_R.

What percentage of the Conservative platform is made up by military spending, tax policy, and social policy? I dare say that substantially less than 50% of the pages in the new Conservative Blue Book are focused on these issues.

For example... what do you think of the Conservatives stance on given a child-care allowance directly to parents? This is a major plank in their platform which I don't believe that you've discussed.

I must say that I disagree with you on the debt point. Given the massive size of the Canadian debt, you'll never have tax cuts in Canada in waiting to have the Canadian debt made negligable. I've come to accept that the Canadian debt that simply will not be conquered within my lifetime. The best plan is to grow Canada's economy to such an extent that we can start to pay off the interest (and a bit more) of the debt on an annual basis - to do so now, we would need either tax hikes, or cuts to social spending. However, with a stronger economy in Canada, we will have a larger GDP, and we'll have more money to use to pay down the debt. Unless you're willing to endure painful increases in taxes, and/or painful cuts to social spending, there's simply no way to make a meaningful dent into the national debt. In any event, Paul Martin is suggesting tax cuts as well. Your fiscal policy would seem to allign you most closely to Jack Layton, who is the most fundamentally oppossed to tax cuts at this time of the 3 national party leaders.

Actually, I don't see where Harper was ever "extreme right". To me, a person who is extreme right would be somebody suggesting massive cuts to social spending, major cuts to taxes, and wanting to roll back the social policy clock to 1960 at least.
I've seen slight incremental change on Harper's part, but one that makes a significant different. He's gone from opposining even gay civil unions, to only opposing the recent redefinition of "marriage" (I know of many people on both the right, and the left, who have made similiar movements towards a compromise on this issue). He's never been one of the stronger pro-life candidates on the right... indeed, I would consider him pro-life in principle, but someone who accepts that Canadian abortion law will be pro-choice for the forseeable (and likely long-term) future.

 

[FiveParadox]

My Position on the Conservative Party

:arrow: My Opinion Regarding the Conservative Child Care Proposal

In my opinion, the issue of child care proposal would be better handled with a program than a payment. This is just my personal opinion. In keeping with the principles of Canada, parents should be free to opt into "for-profit" day care services if they do so choose and if they have the appropriate funds to do so; otherwise, there should be one national "standard" to make the difference for those who would not otherwise be able to afford it.

For those who have very little by way of a child care budget now, one hundred dollars per month would, in my opinion, not be adequate in terms of paying for the required services. That's just my opinion, though.

:arrow: In Relation to the Debt

Actually, Triple_R, the Liberal Government of Canada is in a position where it has been able to pay the entire interest, annualy, while still paying down a portion of the principle. For example, in our most recent fiscal year, the Government paid the entire amount of $35.8 billion on the debt's interest, and an additional $9.1 billion on the principle.

The Conservative Party of Canada has expressed a certain degree of discontent over having a surplus at all; I assert that we would not see any particular "dent to the debt" made during a Conservative Government on this basis alone. According to the principles and practices of the Ministry of Finance, surplus funds must be allocated toward the debt.

:arrow: Mr. Harper's Position on the Political Spectrum

With all due respect to your opinion, Triple_R, I would contend that the Hon. Stephen Harper had, in fact, exhibited himself as being quite right-wing at points within the last decade — to a degree which, in my opinion, could not have become as centrist as we are seeing during the campaign for the Thirty-ninth General Election.

I would be led to believe this by speeches that Mr. Harper has made in the past — more particularly those in relation to the National Citizens' Coalition — and do not believe that he could have "abandoned" these views so quickly. In these speeches he argued against gay rights, against a woman's right to choose, and against the Supreme Court, among other things.

:arrow: In Conclusion

Triple_R, let me be quite clear; I don't intend to sound like I am "attacking" Mr. Harper, and if that is in fact the case, then I apologize. Believe it or not, even if I do disagree with his policies, and even if I would prefer that he not be appointed Prime Minister of Canada, I do respect the man. He deserves at least that much; he led his party from the depths of self-destruction to the strong party that it has become today. I just happen to be a bit to the left of the party, in general.

:!: Edit Corrected a typo.

 

[Triple_R]

FiveParadox - Do you honestly believe that merely being pro-life (let's be fair, now - it's not fair to characterize pro-lifers as 'being against a woman's right to choose'; they're simply against what they percieve to be an act tantamount to murder), and being anti-same sex marriage ( a new right that only came into existence recently) makes one a extreme conservative?

I've been polls that suggest that a large, and substantial, minority of Canadians are pro-life, and anti-gay marriage.
On the same sex marriage issue, I remeber seeing polls where almost 40% were in favour of the current stand, about a third were in favour of the civil union compromise, and about 30% were against it entirely.

Going from anti-gay marriage to pro-gay civil union/pro-traditional definition of marriage is a shift I've seen numerous people make. It's hardly hard to believe that Harper is one such person.

I'll debate the other issues with you later, however, and will admit that I was wrong on the debt issue unless I find evidence to the contrary. Good day.

 

[FiveParadox]

Good day!

Good day to you, too, Triple_R.

 

[Freethinker]

RE: I am amazed by the le

I count myself as center left. My first votes were for Mulroney and I voted Conservative and Even reform right up till 2004, where I was going to vote Liberal, but the election fell on my holidays. By traditional Canadian standards the Liberals are actually a fairly centerist or even center right party. Full support of free trade. Significant cuts early in their reign to bring deficits under control.

As a long time past Tory voter. I won't be voting conservative, they are not the Tories, I will be voting Liberal for the first time. Make no mistake, I think Harper is smarter, slicker and much better organized than the fumbling Paul Martin, but in the end I disagree completely Harpers policies. Do I want someone very effective at implementing everything I disagree with? Under no circumstance, so I have to settle for voting for a fumbler that I do agree with. I would rather have slow progress in the desired directiong than fast progress in the opposite directing. But in this case I think I am just voting to limit Harper to a minority which will at least slow him down.

The GST cut benefits the wealthy most, and the poor not at all. This is the fairest tax we have. When I was a starving University student, I paid practically no GST (food , lodging, books). What little I did pay was more than compensated by the rebates (probably 4x over).

The GST gets everyone, from the ultra rich who shelter their money with loopholes, to drug dealers who make it all illegally under the table. Because if you want to enjoy your wealth in Canada you will pay your GST when you buy cars, yachts etc...

It strikes me as an outright lie to claim the GST cut will benefit low income Canadians most of all, or more than the liberal income tax cut.

The other conservative tax cut is a Capital gains cut. Benefit to the poor? Nil.

This is the right wing idealogy and under it the gap between rich and poor will grow larger, faster. The gap between rich and poor is one of the greatest correlators to social problems/crime etc.

And this is an idealogy that acts without need. Canada already has a thriving economy, consistently near the top of the G7 for both growth and fiscal restraint. So why rebalance in favor of the wealthy and corporation when we already have very healthy growth? There is no reason other than core idealogy. An idealogy that always says corporations should be unfettered in quest for profits and the poor should fend for themselves.

This is an idealogy I can't support.