who would you vote for?

[no1important]

RE: who would you vote fo

Anyway, everybody thought Pawley was bad until we got Filmon. Fiscal mismanagement, scandals, lies, broken promises...a typical Conservative government.

He sure was and our moronic premeir hired him to do a review of our forest fire practices and to make reccomendations.

Firstly, the only two parties which have fiscal restraint are the Grits and Tories. The NDP has zero credibility on maintaing a successful economy

Why do people keep saying this as if it is an NDP specific issue? Thats bull.

 

[zenfisher]

Its very interesting that you would choose Norway as an example there Hank. The most successful of socialist governments. Especially in a rant railing against a socialist party. Very strange indeed.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Yup... he was NDP...I was making a point how one, provincial no less, NDP vote mattered to Canada. That was one example.

Not what I meant. He was, when he scuttled Meech Lake, officially a Liberal. He wasn't really though. He was representing natives, largely because Ovid Mercredi wouldn't.

sure there are alot of hardcore socialist people in Canada but there are alot more of us working folk that pay taxes and understand how the economy works

You know damned well that NDP supporters works just as hard as everybody else and know just as much about the economy. You wouldn't be trolling, would you?

NDP people have no concept.....they want to end freetrade because of the underlying hatred for the US

That's not the reason at all and you've heard the truth, so now you are either trolling or lying.

absolutely... they might work in a insignificant province like Manitoba or Sask.

Okay, definite trolling. If you knew anything though, you'd be capable of grasping that it is much harder to manage a small economy because there's less room for error. Maybe that's why the Conservatives did such a piss poor job. That and they were crooks.

and Harper being an economist is the best suited candidate for the job

I was wondering....Since Harper is alleged to be an economist, although he's spent his entire career pushing his insane dogma on others, how come his platform was panned by every non-partisan economist in the country last election? I mean, hell, he got fewer endorsements from economists than the NDP did.

So is just as incompetent as an economist as he is as a politician, or is he even more incompetent as an economist?

 

[peapod]

Hank cheyenne, pick up your pms.

 

[Colpy]

Man, does this forum ever require some hard-headed right wing input.

Thank God I'm here! :wink:

I would vote Conservative, even though I am not a huge fan of Harper.

Why do I not care for Mr. Harper?

He has turned the Conservatives into Liberal Lite.

I was a member of Reform, and the Canadian Alliance, and now the Conservative Party.

The liberals have got to go. They have done serious damage to this country over the last 40 years. They deserve a nice long stroll in the political wilderness.

The NDP are unable to deal with reality. I actually like to see them in Parliament, as their views need to be expressed to expand debate. But PLEASE, no more than 20 MPs.

I actually like Gilles Duceppe.....he is a man of principles, and an idealist. Unfortunately he is also a ex-Marxist. God forbid he ever get in power.

Of course, the only two Marxist institutions left outside of Cuba and North Korea are the Canadian Dep't of Health and the Canadian Dep't of Indian Affairs.

(That oughta get them goin') :lol:

[/i]

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: who would you vote fo

Do you have anything at all to back up your assertions, Colpy? The Conservatives are still the same old party of intolerance, racism, and economic policy that punishes poor people even while it keeps them from advancing. Not much different from the Reform Party at all, and exactly the same as the Alliance.

 

[Colpy]

Exactly what assertions would yo like me to back up?

As for your own assertions, I don't agree with every policy of any of the parties I have belonged too. I do, however, resent the implication of racism. The Conservative Party, like Reform and the Alliance before it, has a caucus that is as diverse as any other in Parliament. In fact (and I may be corrected in this) I believe the Conservative caucus is both the youngest AND the most dfiverse in the House.

Damn them rascist rednecks is sneaky, eh? Playin' at being folks of colour all this time!

I don't see any Conservative Party policy that punishes poor people, or that prevents them standing on their own two feet.

Indeed, part of Conservative policy is to end government handouts to rich business interests.

The rich in this country overwhelmingly vote Liberal.

As for intolerant, there is a catch phrase that needs defining. Intolerant of what, exactly?

Radical Islamist preachers?

The LTTE, the front for the terrorist Tamil Tigers so eagerly supported by the Liberals?

The Khadr family of seditious murderers?

Corrupt politicians?

War criminals?

Criminals who immigrate to Canada?

Gang violence?

Yep, I'm intolerant of all those things.

 

[no1important]

RE: who would you vote fo

I don't see any Conservative Party policy that punishes poor people, or that prevents them standing on their own two feet.

They did in Alberta and BC. (the liberals in BC are libs in name only the BC Liberals are all ex social credit, conservatives etc they are a right wing conservative party)

Indeed, part of Conservative policy is to end government handouts to rich business interests.

Sure they will. The government here just gave a tax break reduction of 1.5% to corperations and i am sure Alberta does the same.

As for intolerant, there is a catch phrase that needs defining. Intolerant of what, exactly?

Anyone who is not a white christian hetrosexual.

Corrupt politicians?

Mulroney, Stockwell Day.

The rich in this country overwhelmingly vote Liberal.

except the rich in Alberta eh? The rich are not a majority of the population and far from it so someone else has to be voting for them.

 

[MMMike]

Re: RE: who would you vote fo

Do you have anything at all to back up your assertions, Colpy? The Conservatives are still the same old party of intolerance, racism, and economic policy that punishes poor people even while it keeps them from advancing. Not much different from the Reform Party at all, and exactly the same as the Alliance.

:roll: There are extremists in every party, including the left. In fact, much of the anti-semitism these days emanates from the left. And just so you know, less welfare and less income "redistribution" does not constitute punishing poor people. Rather, the opposite is true - the high tax policies of the ndp discriminate against the rich and successful.

 

[Colpy]

I think the way the BC government treated the teachers is outrageous. And I agree the Liberal BC party is not Liberal. Of course, neither is the Federal party.

I am not sure of what you are talking about in BC and Alberta re hurting the poor. I live in New Brunswick, so I may have missed something, unless you were speaking of the teachers' strike.

The Alberta Conservatives are NOT the federal Conservatives. Ralph Klein is no friend of Harper. Or did you miss the last election campaign?

I already pointed out that the Conservative party is AT LEAST as diverse as any other in Parliament. Accusations of rascism seem to be the last refuge of left-wing scoundrels.

Mulrooney should probably be in jail for the Airbus thing, but it IS necessary to prove such things.

Stockwell Day?????????

The rich are a small proportion, but they DO vote Liberal to protect their own interests.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Exactly what assertions would yo like me to back up?

Well, how about these:

He has turned the Conservatives into Liberal Lite.

They have done serious damage to this country over the last 40 years.

The NDP are unable to deal with reality.

Of course, the only two Marxist institutions left outside of Cuba and North Korea are the Canadian Dep't of Health and the Canadian Dep't of Indian Affairs.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I do, however, resent the implication of racism.

And yet you said

Of course, the only two Marxist institutions left outside of Cuba and North Korea are the Canadian Dep't of Health and the Canadian Dep't of Indian Affairs.

When combined with so many other things that have been put forth by the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives over the years, not to mention the complete and utter ignorance shown by their members about the treaties that have been signed, this is yet another example of racism.

Indeed, part of Conservative policy is to end government handouts to rich business interests.

Is that why Stephen Harper sued the government in an attempt to keep 3rd party advertising legal? Is that why they refused to fine Cargill and Tyson for breech of parliament? Is that why the Conservative Party has consistently ignored overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and chosen to believe the lies and misconsruations put forth by the oil lobby?

As for intolerant, there is a catch phrase that needs defining. Intolerant of what, exactly?

Why don't read what you've written so far?

In fact, much of the anti-semitism these days emanates from the left.

Yeah, because speaking out against the state of Israel because of their treatment of Palestinians is anti-semitic. :roll:

Palestinians are a semitic people, MMMikey. Because they never emigrated to Europe and then returned, they are generally more semitic, at least genetically, than most citizens of Israel. Your argument makes no sense at all.

I would like to know if you think that the large number of Israelis who have been speaking out against their government and saying the same things that what you define as "the left" are saying are also just discriminating against their fellow Jews.

 

[Colpy]

Okay

Harper turned the Conservatives into Liberal Lite by abandoning the old Reform planks of recall, citizen initiation referendum, Parliamentary reform, etc. He has adopted a very centre of the road policy platform.

When Pierre Trudeau took power in 1968, Canada had NO debt, was running a surplus, had a very well equipped and trained military of 145,000. We were respected throughout the world as a middle power that "punched above its weight" in international affairs. Our MPs, even the backbenchers, were not "Nobodys". Parliament actually got to vote on important regulations, and politicians were largely respected.
Now we are a laughing stock on the world stage. We are deeply in debt, our military is a joke, our Parliament is ineffective, we are ruled by order-in-council and the Liberal-appointed judges of the Supreme Court. That's the Readers' Digest Condensed version. I could go on and on.

Jack Layton's plan to fight global warming (according to his book) is to build windmills financed by cash from the CPP. He plans to stop Canadian gun violence by banning legally held guns in Toronto, and by sending delegates south to coax the Americans into passing strict gun control in defiance of their constitution. He plans on solving the world's prblems by turning over sovereignty to the United Nations!!!! No reality there.

There are three nations on earth were it is illegal to buy private heath services; Canada, North Korea, and Cuba. Point Taken?

The Dep't of Indian Affairs (or whatever it is known as to the politically correct these days) has traditionally been a top-down director to disasterous effect. Notice the forced resettlement of Indians to Davis Inlet and the latest fiasco after Indians were resettled (I'm not even going to try to spell that one!) Indian bands on reservation are forced to hold property in common, which means, of course, that nobody cares for anything. Sounds like the old USSR to me.

 

[Reverend Blair]

It was Mulroney who made the debt grow insanely, Colpy. It was a combination of his policy of high interest rates and his habit of running huge deficits.

The other factor, and since you are political scientist you should be fully aware of this, the prevailing economic dogma of the 1970s and early 1980s was that a country could spend itself out of debt. Silly, but not any sillier than the trickle down theory we've been watching fail for a quarter of century.

Jack Layton's plan to fight global warming (according to his book) is to build windmills financed by cash from the CPP. He plans to stop Canadian gun violence by banning legally held guns in Toronto, and by sending delegates south to coax the Americans into passing strict gun control in defiance of their constitution. He plans on solving the world's prblems by turning over sovereignty to the United Nations!!!! No reality there.

This misrepresentation of NDP policy is laughable. The work of somebody who neither taken the time to learn the facts, nor the effort to create a reasonable fabrication.

Your understanding of Native issues and the operation of Indian Affairs is at least as dishonest as your appraisal of NDP policy. This type of misrepresentation by people such as yourself has served to perpetuate native problems for decades.

Sorry, Colpy, when I saw that you majored in political science I thought you would be better informed on the issues. Instead you've presented over-simplistic, arguments meant to mislead.

 

[Colpy]

Hey Rev!

I agree Mulroney pumped up the debt even faster than Trudeau had done. I also agree economic turmoil had something to do with that. However, I always saw Mulroney as a Liberal in a blue suit. I actually voted PC in 1984, for the first (and last) time.

I was a Reform Party guy, remember?

Mulroney created the Reform Party out of conservatives that couldn't stand some of his policies.

I certainly picked the most laughable of Layton's ideas to project, but all's fair.....as long as it is truth, and those are all positions the man has taken. I actually support his views on the protection of pensions, legalization of marijuana, and "anti-terrorism" legislation.

Many years ago, in my unkept and foolish youth, I used to vote NDP. That was when in was mostly a grassroots party supported by western farmers, before it was taken over by pie-in-the-sky urban intellectuals.

So where was I incorrect (in fact I mean, not in thought) on the Indian Affairs matter?

 

[Karlin]

Do you believe the numbers are right in the CBC poll
RE:which party would you vote for ?

Liberals = 38%
CPC = 38%
NDP = 19%

[i saw these on the TV news tonight, Nov5th 2005]


NDP has been stuck there a long time. It seems these numbers are being softened a bit. The major media would not like the NDP support... fudging results of polls to cool down their rising popularity [people tend to go with the crowds] is pretty dangerous, but hey, they have protection and urging of corporate canada.

The poll in this thread might be more like reality .. do you really think we are "an NDP site", as mentioned earlier? It seems we have a few RW-ers here [but they do get trounced a lot]

 

[Reverend Blair]

However, I always saw Mulroney as a Liberal in a blue suit. I actually voted PC in 1984, for the first (and last) time.

More like Martin is a conservative. I never voted for Mulroney though, and I saw what Reform was before it became a party, so I sure as hell never voted for them.

I certainly picked the most laughable of Layton's ideas to project, but all's fair.....as long as it is truth, and those are all positions the man has taken. I actually support his views on the protection of pensions, legalization of marijuana, and "anti-terrorism" legislation.

No what you did was pick small parts of entire policies as present them as the whole policy. That is inherently dishonest. The NDP Kyoto plan is based on a lot of research and includes several measures. Because the NDP realise that things have to be paid for, unlike the Conservatives, they say how they will achieve that.

You attempted to make it sound like wind energy doesn't work, which is incorrect, and you attempted to make it sound like they would rob the CPP to pay for it, which is a misrepresentation. The CPP would benefit by investing in new technologies because new technologies create a high return on the dollar. In this case the technology is proven and in an area with extremely high demand.

If you'd done your homework you would have known all that. Apparently you prefer the Conservative plan of denying that science is valid if it's inconvenient to your corporate backers. BTW, if you see Monty Solberg at a convention, kick the little luddite in ass and tell him to quit being such an idiot.

So where was I incorrect (in fact I mean, not in thought) on the Indian Affairs matter?

The Dep't of Indian Affairs (or whatever it is known as to the politically correct these days) has traditionally been a top-down director to disasterous effect.

All government is like that. DIA has more opportunites for initiatives to come from below than most though. Bands have started successful programs in everything from construction to education to land reform. The department doesn't tell them to start those programs.

Indian bands on reservation are forced to hold property in common, which means, of course, that nobody cares for anything.

And people have been working to change that for a very long time. You know who bitches the hardest about such initiatives though? Conservatives. It was also Conservatives who bitched about natives going to school in small towns ("they might date our daughters"), Conservatives who decided that successful agricultural programs on reserves were communism, Conservatives who complained when natives got the modern equipment for the agricultural programs.

It has been, overwhelmingly, Conservatives who have acted to keep natives poor, keep them isolated, and keep things the way they are. The Liberals don't care, but the Conservatives act negatively. I've seen Conservative RM councils turn down the best bid for road maintenance and road building because the guy bidding on the work was a native. I've talked to one of your MPs about a museum grant and he mumbled something about there being nothing but Indians in that town anyway.

This is going to piss you off to no end, Colpy, but I have friends and relatives in the department and friends and relatives who live on reserves. I've seen the problems and so many of them are deeply rooted in racism. That racism comes from the white people in small communities and the worst of them have had Reform/Alliance/Conservative signs on their lawns in every damned election.

 

[Cosmo]

Man, does this forum ever require some hard-headed right wing input.

Thank God I'm here! :wink:

(That oughta get them goin') :lol:

Yep, Colpy, there seems to be a lack of "hard-headed right wing input" here. Perhaps there is good reason for that, though. Most of the people here, me included, find the far right distasteful. The biggotry, narrow mindedness and bible waving passion of that group sets my teeth on edge. It may well "get them goin" as you put it, but be prepared for the hard questions. And be prepared to defend the philosophy without resorting to personal attacks, as many right wing people are prone to do.

I would like to hear why you, personally, feel the policies of the far right are valid. I honestly don't know how, in this day and age of enlightenment, those political leanings can be acceptable to anyone. Particulary the religion based ideologies. I do not understand how anyone could justify legislating religious morality into law. With the degree of diversity present in our country, a separation of church and state is essential. I personally don't believe in your bible so why should I be forced to follow laws based on it?

If you can refrain from making it personal, this could be an interesting conversation.

 

[Colpy]

First of all, let's come to an understanding on some things;

- There is no "hard right" political party in Canada. All the significant political parties in this country are ideologically squeezed tightly together in the middle of the political spectrum. All parties, including the Conservatives (and the old Reformers) recognize and value Canada's social safety net, especially health care. They acknowledge the need of good health care for ALL, they simply disagree on the best way to deliver it. The Conservative Party of Canada would be considered "liberal" or left wing in the United States. To label them "hard right" is to do them a disservice.

If you live in any part of the English speaking world, you already live under a legal system and laws based on judeo-Christian principles and culture. Let me say immediatey that, although I consider myself a Christian, I am far from a bible- thumper. I would like to see the legalization of both marijuana and prostitution. I would be against any law that tried to regulate sexual behaviour between consenting adults. I would not support the resurrection of the death penalty in Canada, except for mass murderers.


Now I'm gonna go out on a limb.

It is my belief that Christianity and democracy go hand-in-hand. Modern democracy was created by men of deep, personal Christian belief. Thomas Jefferson even reflected whether democracy was possible without the check of Christian principles among the population.

Christianity, in it's truest form, is a religion of individual choice. Thus every modern democracy sprang from deeply Christian societies.

Just a thought.

 

[Reverend Blair]

There is no "hard right" political party in Canada.

Sorry, that is false. It used to be true when the Progressive Conservatives existed and the Reform Party did not, however the Reform Party is very close to the Republican Party in the United States. They stand far to the right of moderate.

That is exhibited by their willingness to mix religion and government, their willingness to dismantle the social safety net, and their belief in unfettered trade. When those are combined with their belief in corporate influence in government, they begin to move very close to the dogma of fascism.

All parties, including the Conservatives (and the old Reformers) recognize and value Canada's social safety net, especially health care.

Once again, false. The leadership of the Conservatives has championed the privatisation of health care and the think-tank that most influences their political thought has sworn to bring in a user-pay system that includes private insurance. Conservatives have cut programs for welfare, housing, and other parts of our social safety net on a provincial level and have spoken extensively of doing the same on a federal level.

They acknowledge the need of good health care for ALL, they simply disagree on the best way to deliver it.

Untrue. The Conservative acknowledgement of health care is not to equal access, but to minimum access for those who use government services and maximum access for those who can pay privately.

The Conservative Party of Canada would be considered "liberal" or left wing in the United States.

An utter and complete falsehood. Conservatives were present at the Republican National Convention. They send people for training at a Republican facility. They have adopted the programs of the Republican Party as their platform. The Conservatives would be considered right-wing in the United States.

If you live in any part of the English speaking world, you already live under a legal system and laws based on judeo-Christian principles and culture.

A misconstruation constantly perpetuated by the religious right. Our laws are based on British common law. That law pre-dates the Roman's arrival in Britain and certainly pre-dates the arrival of Christianity in England.

It is my belief that Christianity and democracy go hand-in-hand.

That is a mistaken belief.

Modern democracy was created by men of deep, personal Christian belief. Thomas Jefferson even reflected whether democracy was possible without the check of Christian principles among the population.

Jefferson considered himslef a Deist and rejected the divinity of Jesus, although he did give great creedence to Jesus as a philosopher. He said so in letters, so you can check his beliefs as expressed in his own words.

What he characterised as "Christian principles" were what the right commonly criticizes the left for in the western world.

Christianity, in it's truest form, is a religion of individual choice. Thus every modern democracy sprang from deeply Christian societies.

Not only is this complete hokum, but it shows an inherent prejudice against non-Christians. Many of the facets of modern North American democracy were derived from interaction with natives, who certainly were not Christian at the time.