Canada's turn for an election - DPChallenge Forums

09/07/2008 08:02:31 PM · #51

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

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

Yikes. So if the current government was so broken up about that fact, why did they force an extension several times? Further, if it's all the Liberals fault, why is the current government spending $19B on the military in 2009? Why are they using "arctic sovereignty" to pad the military budget (they aren't even smart enough to buy the right equipment to make it look real)?

Sorry, but I simply can't take anyone seriously who thinks the Liberals are either hawkish, or responsible in any way for getting off on deploying the military. That's Harper's dream job. Everybody's saying it.

You think that troops can be pulled out overnight? Jack Layton does since he wants them brought home immediately.

Lets see what happens to Afghanistan if we decide to pull everyone out tomorrow.

I guess the Liberal tact to just let everything fall apart is the better way to go. Drop the military. We can always call on the Americans any time we need help.

Message edited by author 2008-09-07 20:04:10.

09/07/2008 08:06:07 PM · #52

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

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

Yikes. So if the current government was so broken up about that fact, why did they force an extension several times? Further, if it's all the Liberals fault, why is the current government spending $19B on the military in 2009? Why are they using "arctic sovereignty" to pad the military budget (they aren't even smart enough to buy the right equipment to make it look real)?

Sorry, but I simply can't take anyone seriously who thinks the Liberals are either hawkish, or responsible in any way for getting off on deploying the military. That's Harper's dream job. Everybody's saying it.

You think that troops can be pulled out overnight? Jack Layton does since he wants them brought home immediately.

Lets see what happens to Afghanistan if we decide to pull everyone out tomorrow.

I guess the Liberal tact to just let everything fall apart is the better way to go. Drop the military. We can always call on the Americans any time we need help.

... and the opposition could have brought down the government by voting against the extension.

09/07/2008 08:09:37 PM · #53

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Absolutely nothing. Canada's not the only NATO member. Anyway, I didn't say anything about an overnight pullout or any kind of pullout. I'm not informed enough to know if they should be there or not. I do know that I'd rather they were a peacekeeping force, not the fightin' force Harper wants them to be.

I also know that I don't want to live in a country where you can go to the auto show at the Rogers Centre and be confronted by a display of military vehicles, four dozen military personnel in full uniform, and a recruitment officer. Imagine the feeling of revulsion for old-school Canucks like me at the spectacle of seven and eight year old kids climbing on tanks and heavy artillery guns and other machinery of war as though they were jungle jims. Killing devices as playthings for the kids. To get them acclimatized, I suppose, or some other chilling Orwellian nonsense. Sorry, that's NOT the country I want to live in.

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

09/07/2008 08:13:01 PM · #54

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

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

Yikes. So if the current government was so broken up about that fact, why did they force an extension several times? Further, if it's all the Liberals fault, why is the current government spending $19B on the military in 2009? Why are they using "arctic sovereignty" to pad the military budget (they aren't even smart enough to buy the right equipment to make it look real)?

Sorry, but I simply can't take anyone seriously who thinks the Liberals are either hawkish, or responsible in any way for getting off on deploying the military. That's Harper's dream job. Everybody's saying it.

You think that troops can be pulled out overnight? Jack Layton does since he wants them brought home immediately.

Lets see what happens to Afghanistan if we decide to pull everyone out tomorrow.

Absolutely nothing. Canada's not the only NATO member. Anyway, I didn't say anything about an overnight pullout or any kind of pullout. I'm not informed enough to know if they should be there or not. I do know that I'd rather they were a peacekeeping force, not the fightin' force Harper wants them to be.

I also know that I don't want to live in a country where you can go to the auto show at the Rogers Centre and be confronted by a display of military vehicles, four dozen military personnel in full uniform, and a recruitment officer. Imagine the feeling of revulsion for old-school Canucks like me at the spectacle of seven and eight year old kids climbing on tanks and heavy artillery guns and other machinery of war as though they were jungle jims. Killing devices as playthings for the kids. To get them acclimatized, I suppose, or some other chilling Orwellian nonsense. Sorry, that's NOT the country I want to live in.

Excuse me. You really think that nothing would happen if the Canadian troops pulled out tomorrow without other NATO troops moving in to fill the space? Ya, there's a long line of them too. NOT.

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

09/07/2008 08:14:23 PM · #55

It's enough for me to see Steven Harper's eyes.

Clearly, they are evil.

They can probably shoot laser beems and melt kittens.

When one of Harper's campaign people phoned and spoke to me last go 'round, I told her that I was sorry, but I simply couldn't vote for him because he has evil eyes. She had no argument for that. I rest my case.

09/07/2008 08:15:23 PM · #56

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

I guess the Liberal tact to just let everything fall apart is the better way to go. Drop the military. We can always call on the Americans any time we need help.

That's a tired response. And I know you don't mean to absurdly suggest that the Liberals seek to disband the military, or to sign Canada's sovereignty over to the Americans in times of trouble. That would be pretty disingenuous of you.

Did you read that article? Why is the government spending more on military equipment than can possibly be used? Four times more, to be exact. It's absurd, unless this government is planning to turn this nation into a militaristic one like the United States. No, that's NOT what I want.

09/07/2008 08:16:38 PM · #57

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Excuse me. You really think that nothing would happen if the Canadian troops pulled out tomorrow without other NATO troops moving in to fill the space? Ya, there's a long line of them too. NOT.

I'm sure you read my full response, where I indicated I mentioned nothing about an overnight pullout.

09/07/2008 08:17:32 PM · #58

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

So get the shirt already.

09/07/2008 08:19:33 PM · #59

cpanaioti, I just noticed you're from Alberta. Things are clearer now. ;-)

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

09/07/2008 08:19:43 PM · #60

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:
I guess the Liberal tact to just let everything fall apart is the better way to go. Drop the military. We can always call on the Americans any time we need help.

That's a tired response. And I know you don't mean to absurdly suggest that the Liberals seek to disband the military, or to sign Canada's sovereignty over to the Americans in times of trouble. That would be pretty disingenuous of you.

Did you read that article? Why is the government spending more on military equipment than can possibly be used? Four times more, to be exact. It's absurd, unless this government is planning to turn this nation into a militaristic one like the United States. No, that's NOT what I want.

I was being ficisious (however you spell it). No, I don't want a military state either but when the military equipment is run down and hasn't been kept up to date you have to spend a lot to bring it back up to speed. Sorry for the old argument. I don't see this spending as turning us into a military state like the US.

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

09/07/2008 08:32:00 PM · #61

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Strikeslip:
It's enough for me to see Steven Harper's eyes.

Clearly, they are evil.

They can probably shoot laser beems and melt kittens.

When one of Harper's campaign people phoned and spoke to me last go 'round, I told her that I was sorry, but I simply couldn't vote for him because he has evil eyes. She had no argument for that. I rest my case.

So get the shirt already.

LOL! Holy crap, so I'm not the only one who sees the truth! :-D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

09/07/2008 08:53:38 PM · #62

Originally posted by Louis:

cpanaioti, I just noticed you're from Alberta. Things are clearer now. ;-)

I spent 12 years in Ottawa to realize that nothing will change so I came back west, back to BC when I get the chance.

It's where people tend to think in terms of the country rather than Toronto. ;o)

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

09/07/2008 09:39:37 PM · #63

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

...I was being ficisious (however you spell it)...

fastidious

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

09/07/2008 11:48:45 PM · #64

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

I don't see this spending as turning us into a military state like the US.

No for that to happen you have to spend $681 billion more in '09 (or what ever it is with the exchange rate ;-P)

KarenNfld

09/08/2008 07:46:46 AM · #65

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:
...I was being ficisious (however you spell it)...

fastidious

No, I think she meant facetious.

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

09/08/2008 08:11:21 AM · #66

Originally posted by KarenNfld:

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:
...I was being ficisious (however you spell it)...

fastidious

No, I think she meant facetious.

I think zeuszen was consciously nescient.

09/08/2008 09:48:38 AM · #67

Hm...

"Fixed dates stop leaders from trying to manipulate the calendar," Harper told reporters in May, 2006 when he introduced the legislation.

"Hopefully, in the next election, we can run on our record and we won't need the manipulation of the electoral calendar," he said.

LERtastic

Nikon D200

09/08/2008 03:53:43 PM · #68

Before I say anything I just want to state that I haven't been following anything political for a while.

The last election I was glad that the Liberals lost the Government. I felt that the Canadian public needed to send them a message, "You can not steal from us and not be punished".

This time around, I'm not sure where I stand. I agree with many of the NDP's policies, but I don't think they would be able to do a good job of running the country. I still hold a lot of mistrust for the Liberals (and I'm sure some of that has to do with the news we get in Calgary), and I don't think I'm willing to give them a chance yet. That leaves the Conservatives, which I don't believe will represent what I stand for.

But it doesn't really matter. There's no way Calgary won't be completely blue again. I'll still vote, but it won't change the result.

Honestly, I like these minority governments, they keep everything in check.

09/08/2008 04:17:34 PM · #69

Originally posted by LERtastic:

The last election I was glad that the Liberals lost the Government. I felt that the Canadian public needed to send them a message, "You can not steal from us and not be punished".

Are you referring to the sponsorship scandal? That was a case of some individuals personally enriching themselves at the expense of the Party, and indeed the individuals need to be sanctioned. I don't believe you can paint the entire Party with the scandal brush, down to the last cabinet minister, and the PM himself. Refer to the Liberals' record in their three consecutive majorities to decide what you think of them, for good or ill, rather than viewing them by proxy through the lens of the cynically outraged Conservative party.

Originally posted by LERtastic:

This time around, I'm not sure where I stand. I agree with many of the NDP's policies, but I don't think they would be able to do a good job of running the country.

I think Layton would make a great PM, and I think the NDP are a sound choice. But I'm voting Liberal, because as it stands, the vote split is too much of a problem at this point. (Shameless name dropping: when I was a kid waiting tables in Toronto, Layton was a regular of mine while he was councillor).

Originally posted by LERtastic:

But it doesn't really matter. There's no way Calgary won't be completely blue again. I'll still vote, but it won't change the result.

I think you and I should vote with our consciences. It's the only way to get the party in power that deserves to be there.

09/08/2008 04:54:33 PM · #70

OK I have been reading up on the 3 parties. I have a question, between the NDP and the liberal party who is further left?

09/08/2008 04:59:39 PM · #71

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

OK I have been reading up on the 3 parties. I have a question, between the NDP and the liberal party who is further left?

NDP.

09/08/2008 06:14:47 PM · #72

OK see if I got this straight.

Canadian conservative party = US Republicans
Canadian liberal party = US Democrats
New Democratic Party = Socialists

And after reading about Harper I can see why you want that guy out! He seems like a Bush clone and no one wants another Bush around.

09/08/2008 06:42:24 PM · #73

Another question.

The election in Canada this time is a general election? Is it because of a motion of no confidence?

09/08/2008 08:01:02 PM · #74

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Another question.

The election in Canada this time is a general election? Is it because of a motion of no confidence?

This is a general election. No, it's not a result of a no confidence motion. The Prime Minister dropped the writ and requested that the Governor General dissolve Parliament and give him permission to call an election.

Message edited by author 2008-09-08 20:09:14.