Canada's turn for an election - DPChallenge Forums

09/07/2008 06:45:35 PM · #26

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by Matthew:

I hate referendums. Public decision making is so rarely made on an informed view of the facts: witness the sound bite politicism prevalent in the various US election threads. Once politicised, referendum decisions are made for all the wrong reasons.

That's not entirely the electorate's fault. Those pushing one side or the other are pushing their own agenda and therefore trying to brainwash the public one way or the other. The fault that lies with the electorate is that they don't verify anything. They just believe what they hear/read.

Wait.. wait.

So you're saying it's not the electorate's fault that referendums fail due to the faults of the electorate?

09/07/2008 06:54:13 PM · #27

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by Matthew:

I hate referendums. Public decision making is so rarely made on an informed view of the facts: witness the sound bite politicism prevalent in the various US election threads. Once politicised, referendum decisions are made for all the wrong reasons.

That's not entirely the electorate's fault. Those pushing one side or the other are pushing their own agenda and therefore trying to brainwash the public one way or the other. The fault that lies with the electorate is that they don't verify anything. They just believe what they hear/read.

Wait.. wait.

So you're saying it's not the electorate's fault that referendums fail due to the faults of the electorate?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I'll repeat...

Those pushing one side or the other are pushing their own agenda and therefore trying to brainwash the public one way or the other.

09/07/2008 06:54:58 PM · #28

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by Matthew:

I hate referendums. Public decision making is so rarely made on an informed view of the facts: witness the sound bite politicism prevalent in the various US election threads. Once politicised, referendum decisions are made for all the wrong reasons.

That's not entirely the electorate's fault. Those pushing one side or the other are pushing their own agenda and therefore trying to brainwash the public one way or the other. The fault that lies with the electorate is that they don't verify anything. They just believe what they hear/read.

Wait.. wait.

So you're saying it's not the electorate's fault that referendums fail due to the faults of the electorate?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I'll repeat...

Those pushing one side or the other are pushing their own agenda and therefore trying to brainwash the public one way or the other.

Which is a complete non-issue if the voting public did their homework. So it's still the fault of the electorate.

09/07/2008 06:57:12 PM · #29

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by Matthew:

I hate referendums. Public decision making is so rarely made on an informed view of the facts: witness the sound bite politicism prevalent in the various US election threads. Once politicised, referendum decisions are made for all the wrong reasons.

That's not entirely the electorate's fault. Those pushing one side or the other are pushing their own agenda and therefore trying to brainwash the public one way or the other. The fault that lies with the electorate is that they don't verify anything. They just believe what they hear/read.

Wait.. wait.

So you're saying it's not the electorate's fault that referendums fail due to the faults of the electorate?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I'll repeat...

Those pushing one side or the other are pushing their own agenda and therefore trying to brainwash the public one way or the other.

Which is a complete non-issue if the voting public did their homework. So it's still the fault of the electorate.

There should be no personal agendas involved. Put out the facts and be done with it.

09/07/2008 06:58:38 PM · #30

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

There should be no personal agendas involved. Put out the facts and be done with it.

Again, this is completely beside the point.

09/07/2008 07:01:04 PM · #31

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

There should be no personal agendas involved. Put out the facts and be done with it.

Again, this is completely beside the point.

Again? This is the first time I stated that.

09/07/2008 07:02:06 PM · #32

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

There should be no personal agendas involved. Put out the facts and be done with it.

Again, this is completely beside the point.

Again? This is the first time I stated that.

No, I meant that I stated already that it was beside the point. (well, I said non-issue). I meant me, not you.

09/07/2008 07:06:58 PM · #33

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

There should be no personal agendas involved. Put out the facts and be done with it.

Again, this is completely beside the point.

Again? This is the first time I stated that.

No, I meant that I stated already that it was beside the point. (well, I said non-issue). I meant me, not you.

So, we can't trust the representative to actually represent the constituents and we can't trust the constituents to make an informed decision.

Where does that leave us?

09/07/2008 07:09:24 PM · #34

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

There should be no personal agendas involved. Put out the facts and be done with it.

Again, this is completely beside the point.

Again? This is the first time I stated that.

No, I meant that I stated already that it was beside the point. (well, I said non-issue). I meant me, not you.

So, we can't trust the representative to actually represent the constituents and we can't trust the constituents to make an informed decision.

Where does that leave us?

Exactly.

09/07/2008 07:13:21 PM · #35

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:
This is also what referendums are for. To keep the government from going their own path but actually represent the people that elected them.

I hate referendums. Public decision making is so rarely made on an informed view of the facts: witness the sound bite politicism prevalent in the various US election threads. Once politicised, referendum decisions are made for all the wrong reasons.

We employ people whose entire job is to understand the issues and negotiate and conclude arrangements. It is unreasonable and a little cowardly to devolve the decision making to a public vote.

Recent referendums in the EU on constitutional matters have been disastrous. The EU proposed a new constitution to take into account the extension of the EU eastwards. The treaty doing this took years to negotiate and the compromise between 26 states represented a massive achievement. A wave of referendums across EU states to adopt the revised constitution was torpedoed by the French and Dutch referendums which voted "no" - out of a general dissatisfaction for the EU, nothing much to do with the terms of the treaty.

The Treaty of Lisbon, which rescued some of the much-needed elements of the EU Constitution was then passed without referendum in every country bar one - Ireland has a compulsory referendum process for all constitutional matters and voted "no" - on less than 35% turn out and a vigorous "no" campaign by anti-EU campaigners (again, little or nothing to do with the treaty).

The EU is being paralysed by this ridiculous need to "ask the people" - what's wrong with our good old representative democracy?

Not all decisions should go to a referendum. That's just ridiculous. In very general terms, the elected officials should be dealing with running the country (not the lives of citizens) and foreign affairs (which includes the military). --- remember I said in very general terms.

09/07/2008 07:27:08 PM · #36

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Also, the Liberals ignored the Military to such an extent that even when deployed ( or to get deployed ) we have had to rely on other countries to supply the transport. What I see the Conservatives doing is bringing the Military up to speed for the current missions that they have to be engaged in thanks to the Liberals.

What? Are you seriously suggesting it was the Liberals that were gung-ho about making ours a combatant as opposed to a peace-keeping army?

09/07/2008 07:28:06 PM · #37

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Also, the Liberals ignored the Military to such an extent that even when deployed ( or to get deployed ) we have had to rely on other countries to supply the transport. What I see the Conservatives doing is bringing the Military up to speed for the current missions that they have to be engaged in thanks to the Liberals.

What? Are you seriously suggesting it was the Liberals that were gung-ho about making ours a combatant as opposed to a peace-keeping army?

Who was in power when the Afghan mission was taken on?

09/07/2008 07:28:10 PM · #38

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by Matthew:

... what's wrong with our good old representative democracy?

The representative, if left to his own devices, would go with his/her own agenda rather than that of the people.

Kind of like Harper.

09/07/2008 07:29:14 PM · #39

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by Matthew:

... what's wrong with our good old representative democracy?

The representative, if left to his own devices, would go with his/her own agenda rather than that of the people.

Kind of like Harper.

Not really but you on thinking that.

09/07/2008 07:29:53 PM · #40

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Also, the Liberals ignored the Military to such an extent that even when deployed ( or to get deployed ) we have had to rely on other countries to supply the transport. What I see the Conservatives doing is bringing the Military up to speed for the current missions that they have to be engaged in thanks to the Liberals.

What? Are you seriously suggesting it was the Liberals that were gung-ho about making ours a combatant as opposed to a peace-keeping army?

Who was in power when the Afghan mission was taken on?

Liberals. They deployed the army in 2002. That doesn't make them a combatant aggressive party. At worst, it makes them the shills of the Americans, at best, they thought it was the right place to go after 9/11.

You don't think Harper is a military-friendly PM, much moreso than any PM in the last twenty-five or thirty years?

09/07/2008 07:32:08 PM · #41

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Also, the Liberals ignored the Military to such an extent that even when deployed ( or to get deployed ) we have had to rely on other countries to supply the transport. What I see the Conservatives doing is bringing the Military up to speed for the current missions that they have to be engaged in thanks to the Liberals.

What? Are you seriously suggesting it was the Liberals that were gung-ho about making ours a combatant as opposed to a peace-keeping army?

Who was in power when the Afghan mission was taken on?

Liberals. They deployed the army in 2002. That doesn't make them a combatant aggressive party. At worst, it makes them the shills of the Americans, at best, they thought it was the right place to go after 9/11.

You don't think Harper is a military-friendly PM, much moreso than any PM in the last twenty-five or thirty years?

Yes if you consider actually funding the military as being more military-friendly.

09/07/2008 07:34:03 PM · #42

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by Matthew:

... what's wrong with our good old representative democracy?

The representative, if left to his own devices, would go with his/her own agenda rather than that of the people.

Kind of like Harper.

Not really but you on thinking that.

You don't think Harper and the Conservatives have been thumbing their collective noses at due process for the last two and some years? You don't think there's hypocrisy in saying pre-2006 that the Liberals displayed an arrogant sense of entitlement, then displaying exactly that throughout 2008? Elections Canada? Those sickening fliers that look suspiciously (and illegally) like election ballots that their MPs send around on your dime? Threatening the Charter with every court decision that rubs them the wrong way? You're not frightened of these people?

Message edited by author 2008-09-07 19:35:02.

09/07/2008 07:34:29 PM · #43

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Also, the Liberals ignored the Military to such an extent that even when deployed ( or to get deployed ) we have had to rely on other countries to supply the transport. What I see the Conservatives doing is bringing the Military up to speed for the current missions that they have to be engaged in thanks to the Liberals.

What? Are you seriously suggesting it was the Liberals that were gung-ho about making ours a combatant as opposed to a peace-keeping army?

Who was in power when the Afghan mission was taken on?

Liberals. They deployed the army in 2002. That doesn't make them a combatant aggressive party. At worst, it makes them the shills of the Americans, at best, they thought it was the right place to go after 9/11.

You don't think Harper is a military-friendly PM, much moreso than any PM in the last twenty-five or thirty years?

Yes if you consider actually funding the military as being more military-friendly.

I do not support our troops.

09/07/2008 07:35:30 PM · #44

I'm sure that issue will come up again.

Here's another one.

Dion, who was the environment minister when Kyoto was signed, did squat to try and get Canada on the road to meeting the target and is now trying to push the current government to meet a now unattainable target.

Yes, we need to move forward and reduce greenhouse gases and improve the environment but that's rich coming from someone who was in a position to do something and did absolutely nothing.

09/07/2008 07:41:22 PM · #45

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Hmm.. Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party, seems to think he was okay. Wiki:

'Dion earned high praise for his work chairing the U.N. Climate Change summit (COP 11/MOP 1) in Montreal in 2005. Later, when Dion's record as environment minister was under scrutiny in the closing days of the Liberal leadership campaign, former Sierra Club of Canada director and current leader of the Green Party of Canada Elizabeth May came to his defence, calling him a "very very good environment minister."'

Yes, his ministry did not reduce emissions enough. So does that mean as Leader of the Opposition, you feel that he should continue to do nothing in order to maintain his track record?

09/07/2008 07:43:37 PM · #46

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Also, the Liberals ignored the Military to such an extent that even when deployed ( or to get deployed ) we have had to rely on other countries to supply the transport. What I see the Conservatives doing is bringing the Military up to speed for the current missions that they have to be engaged in thanks to the Liberals.

What? Are you seriously suggesting it was the Liberals that were gung-ho about making ours a combatant as opposed to a peace-keeping army?

Who was in power when the Afghan mission was taken on?

Liberals. They deployed the army in 2002. That doesn't make them a combatant aggressive party. At worst, it makes them the shills of the Americans, at best, they thought it was the right place to go after 9/11.

You don't think Harper is a military-friendly PM, much moreso than any PM in the last twenty-five or thirty years?

Yes if you consider actually funding the military as being more military-friendly.

I do not support our troops.

Supporting the troops and supporting the mission are two different things.

The troops are on the mission by order of government, they have no choice.

09/07/2008 07:45:45 PM · #47

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:
I'm sure that issue will come up again.

Here's another one.

Dion, who was the environment minister when Kyoto was signed, did squat to try and get Canada on the road to meeting the target and is now trying to push the current government to meet a now unattainable target.

Yes, we need to move forward and reduce greenhouse gases and improve the environment but that's rich coming from someone who was in a position to do something and did absolutely nothing.

Hmm.. Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party, seems to think he was okay. Wiki:

'Dion earned high praise for his work chairing the U.N. Climate Change summit (COP 11/MOP 1) in Montreal in 2005. Later, when Dion's record as environment minister was under scrutiny in the closing days of the Liberal leadership campaign, former Sierra Club of Canada director and current leader of the Green Party of Canada Elizabeth May came to his defence, calling him a "very very good environment minister."'

Yes, his ministry did not reduce emissions enough. So does that mean as Leader of the Opposition, you feel that he should continue to do nothing in order to maintain his track record?

No. But don't hold the current government to a target that is no longer attainable due to his own inaction when he had the chance to do something.

09/07/2008 07:48:38 PM · #48

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Also, the Liberals ignored the Military to such an extent that even when deployed ( or to get deployed ) we have had to rely on other countries to supply the transport. What I see the Conservatives doing is bringing the Military up to speed for the current missions that they have to be engaged in thanks to the Liberals.

What? Are you seriously suggesting it was the Liberals that were gung-ho about making ours a combatant as opposed to a peace-keeping army?

Who was in power when the Afghan mission was taken on?

Liberals. They deployed the army in 2002. That doesn't make them a combatant aggressive party. At worst, it makes them the shills of the Americans, at best, they thought it was the right place to go after 9/11.

You don't think Harper is a military-friendly PM, much moreso than any PM in the last twenty-five or thirty years?

Yes if you consider actually funding the military as being more military-friendly.

I do not support our troops.

Supporting the troops and supporting the mission are two different things.

The troops are on the mission by order of government, they have no choice.

I believe they had a choice to be troops. In any event, I'm at fault for sidetracking; I am simply astonished that anyone would suggest it was the Liberals who turned our military into a fightin' force instead of a peace-keeping and rescue operation one. You might be interested in this article, which states:

"An overwhelming majority of Canadians still view their soldiers as peacekeepers and would rather see them helping disaster victims than fighting, an internal poll prepared for National Defence suggests."

09/07/2008 07:51:27 PM · #49

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Also, the Liberals ignored the Military to such an extent that even when deployed ( or to get deployed ) we have had to rely on other countries to supply the transport. What I see the Conservatives doing is bringing the Military up to speed for the current missions that they have to be engaged in thanks to the Liberals.

What? Are you seriously suggesting it was the Liberals that were gung-ho about making ours a combatant as opposed to a peace-keeping army?

Who was in power when the Afghan mission was taken on?

Liberals. They deployed the army in 2002. That doesn't make them a combatant aggressive party. At worst, it makes them the shills of the Americans, at best, they thought it was the right place to go after 9/11.

You don't think Harper is a military-friendly PM, much moreso than any PM in the last twenty-five or thirty years?

Yes if you consider actually funding the military as being more military-friendly.

I do not support our troops.

Supporting the troops and supporting the mission are two different things.

The troops are on the mission by order of government, they have no choice.

I believe they had a choice to be troops. In any event, I'm at fault for sidetracking; I am simply astonished that anyone would suggest it was the Liberals who turned our military into a fightin' force instead of a peace-keeping and rescue operation one. You might be interested in this article, which states:

"An overwhelming majority of Canadians still view their soldiers as peacekeepers and would rather see them helping disaster victims than fighting, an internal poll prepared for National Defence suggests."

Of course. So why are we in Afghanistan? Because the Liberals sent us there.