| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/07/2008 01:18:32 PM · #1 |
|
|
|
09/07/2008 01:24:09 PM · #2 |
... and we'll be done before the US election is finished.
I can't imagine a Canadian campaign going for over a year.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2008 01:25:03 PM · #3 |
Ugh.
Thanks to Dion, we have a chance of watching Stephen Harper finally win his majority government this time around, and then we're really screwed.
Harper with a majority = the potential for every social advancement we've come across in the last few decades since Trudeau to come crashing down. Same-sex marriage legality? Bye bye. (even though it's been in effect for a few years now and has proven itself to be the non-issue that it is), abortion laws? Bye bye. Canada staying out of military aggression? Bye bye.
Please Canada, either get him back in as minority again so his idiocy and religious mandates can be kept in check, or somehow, miraculously, vote Dion in. I'll deal with another carbon tax before I'd ever want to deal with Harper finally being allowed to bring us into the dark ages. |
|
|
|
09/07/2008 01:27:50 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Ugh.
Thanks to Dion, we have a chance of watching Stephen Harper finally win his majority government this time around, and then we're really screwed.
Harper with a majority = the potential for every social advancement we've come across in the last few decades since Trudeau to come crashing down. Same-sex marriage legality? Bye bye. (even though it's been in effect for a few years now and has proven itself to be the non-issue that it is), abortion laws? Bye bye. Canada staying out of military aggression? Bye bye.
Please Canada, either get him back in as minority again so his idiocy and religious mandates can be kept in check, or somehow, miraculously, vote Dion in. I'll deal with another carbon tax before I'd ever want to deal with Harper finally being allowed to bring us into the dark ages. |
Who got us into military aggression? Hmmm, let me think. Ah, it was the Liberals.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2008 01:31:26 PM · #5 |
| The people that are too blame for the next few miserable years are those that elected Dion at the leadership convention...freakin' party politics elected the most bland leader they could find, not exactly exciting the Canadian public like Obama... |
|
|
|
09/07/2008 01:33:11 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Ugh.
Thanks to Dion, we have a chance of watching Stephen Harper finally win his majority government this time around, and then we're really screwed.
Harper with a majority = the potential for every social advancement we've come across in the last few decades since Trudeau to come crashing down. Same-sex marriage legality? Bye bye. (even though it's been in effect for a few years now and has proven itself to be the non-issue that it is), abortion laws? Bye bye. Canada staying out of military aggression? Bye bye.
Please Canada, either get him back in as minority again so his idiocy and religious mandates can be kept in check, or somehow, miraculously, vote Dion in. I'll deal with another carbon tax before I'd ever want to deal with Harper finally being allowed to bring us into the dark ages. |
Who got us into military aggression? Hmmm, let me think. Ah, it was the Liberals. |
That's not what I meant. Under a Harper majority, the military would become more front and center, akin to the U.S. Sending a smattering of troops in to help in Afghanistan/Iraq isn't aggression. (Although I still don't agree with it, and I'm certainly not saying the Liberals are wonderful either. Personally, I'd dance with joy if both parties got their asses handed to them by someone else at this point).
Harper is a danger to this country. That's all there is to it. |
|
|
|
09/07/2008 01:34:10 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by bucket:
The people that are too blame for the next few miserable years are those that elected Dion at the leadership convention...freakin' party politics elected the most bland leader they could find, not exactly exciting the Canadian public like Obama... |
I'd have to agree with this sentiment as well. |
|
|
|
09/07/2008 01:36:02 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Ugh.
Thanks to Dion, we have a chance of watching Stephen Harper finally win his majority government this time around, and then we're really screwed.
Harper with a majority = the potential for every social advancement we've come across in the last few decades since Trudeau to come crashing down. Same-sex marriage legality? Bye bye. (even though it's been in effect for a few years now and has proven itself to be the non-issue that it is), abortion laws? Bye bye. Canada staying out of military aggression? Bye bye.
Please Canada, either get him back in as minority again so his idiocy and religious mandates can be kept in check, or somehow, miraculously, vote Dion in. I'll deal with another carbon tax before I'd ever want to deal with Harper finally being allowed to bring us into the dark ages. |
Who got us into military aggression? Hmmm, let me think. Ah, it was the Liberals. |
That's not what I meant. Under a Harper majority, the military would become more front and center, akin to the U.S. Sending a smattering of troops in to help in Afghanistan/Iraq isn't aggression. (Although I still don't agree with it, and I'm certainly not saying the Liberals are wonderful either. Personally, I'd dance with joy if both parties got their asses handed to them by someone else at this point).
Harper is a danger to this country. That's all there is to it. |
A worse danger would be if Jack Layton, by some miracle, was elected Prime Minister. Bye bye to a balanced budget and watch the debt climb to reaches we have never seen before.
Of the three main parties, Harper is probably the best. That may not be saying much but that's what we've got to choose from.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2008 01:37:38 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Ugh.
Thanks to Dion, we have a chance of watching Stephen Harper finally win his majority government this time around, and then we're really screwed.
Harper with a majority = the potential for every social advancement we've come across in the last few decades since Trudeau to come crashing down. Same-sex marriage legality? Bye bye. (even though it's been in effect for a few years now and has proven itself to be the non-issue that it is), abortion laws? Bye bye. Canada staying out of military aggression? Bye bye.
Please Canada, either get him back in as minority again so his idiocy and religious mandates can be kept in check, or somehow, miraculously, vote Dion in. I'll deal with another carbon tax before I'd ever want to deal with Harper finally being allowed to bring us into the dark ages. |
Who got us into military aggression? Hmmm, let me think. Ah, it was the Liberals. |
That's not what I meant. Under a Harper majority, the military would become more front and center, akin to the U.S. Sending a smattering of troops in to help in Afghanistan/Iraq isn't aggression. (Although I still don't agree with it, and I'm certainly not saying the Liberals are wonderful either. Personally, I'd dance with joy if both parties got their asses handed to them by someone else at this point).
Harper is a danger to this country. That's all there is to it. |
A worse danger would be if Jack Layton, by some miracle, was elected Prime Minister. Bye bye to a balanced budget and watch the debt climb to reaches we have never seen before.
Of the three main parties, Harper is probably the best. That may not be saying much but that's what we've got to choose from. |
Dion winning a minority government is the best choice. I'd take Harper winning a minority though, it's the lesser of the true evils. |
|
|
|
09/07/2008 01:41:23 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Ugh.
Thanks to Dion, we have a chance of watching Stephen Harper finally win his majority government this time around, and then we're really screwed.
Harper with a majority = the potential for every social advancement we've come across in the last few decades since Trudeau to come crashing down. Same-sex marriage legality? Bye bye. (even though it's been in effect for a few years now and has proven itself to be the non-issue that it is), abortion laws? Bye bye. Canada staying out of military aggression? Bye bye.
Please Canada, either get him back in as minority again so his idiocy and religious mandates can be kept in check, or somehow, miraculously, vote Dion in. I'll deal with another carbon tax before I'd ever want to deal with Harper finally being allowed to bring us into the dark ages. |
Who got us into military aggression? Hmmm, let me think. Ah, it was the Liberals. |
That's not what I meant. Under a Harper majority, the military would become more front and center, akin to the U.S. Sending a smattering of troops in to help in Afghanistan/Iraq isn't aggression. (Although I still don't agree with it, and I'm certainly not saying the Liberals are wonderful either. Personally, I'd dance with joy if both parties got their asses handed to them by someone else at this point).
Harper is a danger to this country. That's all there is to it. |
A worse danger would be if Jack Layton, by some miracle, was elected Prime Minister. Bye bye to a balanced budget and watch the debt climb to reaches we have never seen before.
Of the three main parties, Harper is probably the best. That may not be saying much but that's what we've got to choose from. |
Dion winning a minority government is the best choice. I'd take Harper winning a minority though, it's the lesser of the true evils. |
Ya, Dion would stand up and just declare things he doesn't like to be a 'joke'. At least Ignatief didn't get the leadership of the Liberals. Now, there's one scary thought, him leading the country.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2008 01:42:13 PM · #11 |
Even Harper is saying that it will be another Conservative minority.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2008 01:47:55 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Ugh.
Thanks to Dion, we have a chance of watching Stephen Harper finally win his majority government this time around, and then we're really screwed.
Harper with a majority = the potential for every social advancement we've come across in the last few decades since Trudeau to come crashing down. Same-sex marriage legality? Bye bye. (even though it's been in effect for a few years now and has proven itself to be the non-issue that it is), abortion laws? Bye bye. Canada staying out of military aggression? Bye bye.
Please Canada, either get him back in as minority again so his idiocy and religious mandates can be kept in check, or somehow, miraculously, vote Dion in. I'll deal with another carbon tax before I'd ever want to deal with Harper finally being allowed to bring us into the dark ages. |
He has kissed so many butts from east to west that i'm pretty sure he'll end up with a minimal majority government in Oct. Then we'll see the real redneck reformist he really is. Get ready for American style referendums on capital punishment and abortion, to name just two. We hated Bush and his policies, if you can call them that, but we're not going to be done with him like our American friends in Nov. We're going to be stuck with Mini-Bush for a few years yet. :( |
|
|
|
09/07/2008 01:48:27 PM · #13 |
Slippy for Prime Minister!
|
|
|
|
09/07/2008 01:49:28 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
I can't imagine a Canadian campaign going for over a year. |
Oh that would drive me insane. I hate politics.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2008 01:50:43 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Harper is a danger to this country. That's all there is to it. |
Agreed!!!!
|
|
|
|
09/07/2008 01:57:48 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Harper is a danger to this country. That's all there is to it. |
Agreed!!!! |
Is protecting the North a danger?
Is having free votes in Parliament a problem?
What is wrong with an elected Senate?
What is wrong with having our representatives represent us rather than representing the government back to us?
Just a few questions.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2008 02:07:19 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Harper is a danger to this country. That's all there is to it. |
Agreed!!!! |
Is protecting the North a danger?
Is having free votes in Parliament a problem?
What is wrong with an elected Senate?
What is wrong with having our representatives represent us rather than representing the government back to us?
Just a few questions. |
You might want to look a little bit deeper into the real aspirations of Stephen Harper.
Just saying.
Hint: Personal faith as government policy. |
|
|
|
09/07/2008 02:10:28 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Who got us into military aggression? Hmmm, let me think. Ah, it was the Liberals. |
That's not what I meant. Under a Harper majority, the military would become more front and center, akin to the U.S. Sending a smattering of troops in to help in Afghanistan/Iraq isn't aggression. (Although I still don't agree with it, and I'm certainly not saying the Liberals are wonderful either. Personally, I'd dance with joy if both parties got their asses handed to them by someone else at this point).
|
Well, the Liberals got us into the Military aggression business and away from Peace Keeping. Bad, I agree. However, there is no on/off switch.
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.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2008 02:21:14 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Who got us into military aggression? Hmmm, let me think. Ah, it was the Liberals. |
That's not what I meant. Under a Harper majority, the military would become more front and center, akin to the U.S. Sending a smattering of troops in to help in Afghanistan/Iraq isn't aggression. (Although I still don't agree with it, and I'm certainly not saying the Liberals are wonderful either. Personally, I'd dance with joy if both parties got their asses handed to them by someone else at this point).
|
Well, the Liberals got us into the Military aggression business and away from Peace Keeping. Bad, I agree. However, there is no on/off switch.
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. |
Perhaps we should just face the fact that our entire government is screwed. I'll just personally take anyone *not* willing to abolish pro-choice, same-sex marriage, and separation of religion and goverment every time. Wolves in sheep's clothing scare the ever living crap out of me. |
|
|
|
09/07/2008 02:41:22 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Who got us into military aggression? Hmmm, let me think. Ah, it was the Liberals. |
That's not what I meant. Under a Harper majority, the military would become more front and center, akin to the U.S. Sending a smattering of troops in to help in Afghanistan/Iraq isn't aggression. (Although I still don't agree with it, and I'm certainly not saying the Liberals are wonderful either. Personally, I'd dance with joy if both parties got their asses handed to them by someone else at this point).
|
Well, the Liberals got us into the Military aggression business and away from Peace Keeping. Bad, I agree. However, there is no on/off switch.
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. |
Perhaps we should just face the fact that our entire government is screwed. I'll just personally take anyone *not* willing to abolish pro-choice, same-sex marriage, and separation of religion and goverment every time. Wolves in sheep's clothing scare the ever living crap out of me. |
Well that's what I see free votes for. To eliminate an MP from voting their own agenda and voting the way the constituents in their riding expect them to vote.
This is also what referendums are for. To keep the government from going their own path but actually represent the people that elected them.
There is also a responsibility on the part of the electorate to actually do some research into issues and not just blindly accept what is being told to them by whatever source. Fear comes from the unknown.
With the threat of recall, MPs will be unwilling to go against what the constituents expect.
Message edited by author 2008-09-07 14:48:54.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2008 02:49:05 PM · #21 |
I love it! Change a few names and this thread could be about US politics. :-P
Since you all are up on our guys I am going to google your guys and learn a bit about the north's politics eh! |
|
|
|
09/07/2008 02:55:14 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
I love it! Change a few names and this thread could be about US politics. :-P
Since you all are up on our guys I am going to google your guys and learn a bit about the north's politics eh! |
Go for it.
Don't take too long though as it will be over in a flash.
Message edited by author 2008-09-07 14:55:37.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2008 06:31:36 PM · #23 |
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?
|
|
|
|
09/07/2008 06:37:27 PM · #24 |
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.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2008 06:43:12 PM · #25 |
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.
|
|
