Birdy

I agree. Hopefully illusions of grandeur don't push this thought under the table.

I hope it's McKenna. Or Iggy. No Bob Rae. Please, no Bob Rae. Bob Rae doesn't really sound like a Prime Minister's name either... Prime Minister Bob Rae of Canada... nope. Prime Minister Michael Ignatieff of Canada... maybe. Prime Minister Frank McKenna of Canada... not really, but maybe.

BF - we had something similar to Regan here in Ontario - Mike Harris.

Compromise taken D! And thank you too. (didn't see your post before)

Sorry, but if the truth hasn't been arrived on yet, than yours and my points are both subjective.

right... because of everything we learn post-birth. i'm impossible, i know!

My bad. Small bugs.

little teeny weeny flakes in Chatham.

ps. Christians believe in that whole mortal sin thing.

What if the crusade came by way of home-baked goodness and smiles and hugs? You'll be a believer my friend!

I also agree with you 100% re: Khadr. Canadians are gutless. I understand the reasoning of the CP and before them the Liberals, but sometimes judicial processes need to be politicized. Guantanamo should be forced to shut down and Americans everywhere should be ashamed. Imo, George Bush should be tried as a war criminal.

Happy belated birthday Kev!!

That could be a good thing. Less to argue about.

A lot of conservative supporters are middle grounders who have voted Liberal in the past...[cough]me[/cough]. The right isn't as polar as you think it is. The CP is making ground across Canada because of the centrist angle they're taking and because of the seeming demise of the Libs, who even when faced now with an abimsal election result, still can't seem to agree enough to get their shit together. Especially sad when it seems so obvious to everyone what the fricking problem is. I don't think we've seen the end of a strong Liberal party. Just as I didn't think we saw the end of a strong Conservative party. Each had/has to take the time to reformulate what works best for them. The Liberals don't need a coalition to gain support. They need someone who can take all of their different camps and make one big camp. If they formed a coalition, I'd think they'd be selling themselves out. I don't think they should consider themselves on the 'left' as in the NDP being on the left. I'd also say that the Lib vote didn't lose as much to the Bloc as the CP vote did. Meaning the separatists are the real stoppers and therefore, not useless at all. I think it's time for all of those with forgone conclusions about minority governments to give it up. Minority governments have the most ability to do the best while all working together. I'd take a minority Cons/Lib/NDP government any day of the week before any majority of the afore mentioned. All parties, regardless of where they stand, need to be held accountable and in check, and all Canadians should have the ability to have their voice heard, loud and clear. Which is why I think the Libs also sold themselves out when they used the last two years to their advantage, and not to Canadians. Points lost there. What's your question about Khadr???

Someone needs to sit down with all of these camps and have a serious chat.

*shudder* I much prefer that we all learn to work together in minority governments. Seems to me that would be the way to get the most representation in our system.

I think the article is implying that maybe the Green Vision might have a better chance if it were all parties adopted elements of it. Realistically, the Green Party is never going to form a government for a very long time and probably won't come close to even acting as the Opposition. Not to be a downer, just trying t think of real possibilities here. So as such, the green platform is never going to be implemented in it's entirety, so wouldn't it be better for us all if parts of it were present in all of national party's platforms? Instead of having it be isolated to one, spread the wealth amongst us all? I hear what you're saying loud and clear and don't want to urge anyone to 'consolidate'. Just thinking out loud and wondering if maybe the Green Vision would be better served as an Environmental Bill of Rights that you talk of (because of the afore mentioned).

Sad to see him go! Seems like the Green Party doesn't have much to hold onto these days, which is super sad considering how much ground they appeared to be making during the campaign. I don't think it's fair to point the finger at Elizabeth May entirely though. I wonder if the Green Party is meant to act more as a social movement of consciousness rather than a political entity in itself. And if so, is casting ballots for the Green Party really strategic voting of sorts? I really thought the article Andrew Steele wrote spoke volumes. Seems to me that these Greenies would serve all of us much better if they infiltrated the CP, Libs and NDP and started getting the message out there amongst parliamentarians or ran for MP themselves and got elected. Start influencing policy in a party that CAN create/influence policy. It's nice to see though that Chernushenko is shifting his focus towards the municipal end of things. That's just as important, if not more in my books!

Religion forum please. I'm not religious, but what if I were right and man was inherently good, and you were wrong, and man was not born without a nature whatsoever. What happens then? Governments in a democracy are ultimately a representation of their people.

It wasn't an argument. Just saying that because economists sign it, doesn't mean I have to take it on a plate, cut it up, chew and swallow it. I much prefer to make my own dinner. I get what you're saying. We both want the same thing and have different ways of getting there. I get involved in these threads because people try to portray those who vote Conservatives as simply not caring, and feel the need to say that's simply not true (being one of them and all). There's no point in us going around and around when ultimately we're both getting to the same place. I just want it to be clear that I care, as do others who may vote along my line of conscience. Theophrastus - I think might prefer deficit to a lack of health care as well. Just saying that the NDP promises too much and ultimately something's going to break somewhere.

Dude, i'm with you behind the logic of the NDP. Problem is they promise too much. Universal daycare, near billion dollar job creation programs, useless commission officer positions, investments galore into industry, billion dollar investments in infrastructure, funding for organic farmers, funding for fisheries, funding for forestry, grants and debt relief to students, funding for child benefits, funding for housing, funding for healthcare, and the list goes on. Sounds glorious, if it weren't for that whole holy shit, we're in huge debt thing. Jack Layton might promise up and down that he'll keep us from the red, but nothing in his platform shows me that he may do just that. Everything in his platform tells me that we're headed down the road of financial ruin. Imagine an NDP government elected and then faced with the kind of bail-out that the US was required to do (per capita basis)? F'ing scary. Where's that money coming from? You read the article d_jango posted over in the politics forum. The federal budget is narrowly balanced and may slip if real GDP declines, which it undoubtedly will, regardless of who was elected. If this happens and Jack Layton were our PM, he'd have to break a whole shit load of election time promises. Unless of course, he breaks his ultimate promise, and goes into deficit.

The Green shift didn't propose to work with industry. The Green shift proposed to rob from industry and give their winnings to you and I. If you pledge to work with industry you don't penalize them with a tax. You give them incentive and money to change. You warn them that in the future there may be the possibility of a tax if they don't take you up on your good will. And when you impose that tax, you take your winnings and you give it back to them to show them the way. That is what I would consider working with. All parties have it in their platforms to foster the alternative energy industry. Aside: [color:purple]Yay for economists. Alan Greenspan was perhaps one of the most celebrated economists during our time. Remember that.

I think you might possibly underestimate the certain level of content people have with the way things are. I don't think the human spirit is going to go dormant, I just think a number of more people are going to succumb to this content.

Okay. I admit the future isn't all rainbows and fairy tales either. With or without a carbon tax, the future isn't all rainbows and fairy tales. Perhaps my position is heightened because I live in an area where job loss is so great that my friends find themselves consistently on EI, or consider moving away or in the least, constantly have to think about losing their jobs. It sucks, and that's being polite. My position is that there are other ways to support the environment. Governments have it in their power to help our industry instead of penalize them through taxes. I want to see favourable positions instead of the unfavourable. I want to see my taxes go towards helping the auto industry develop eco-friendly lines and helping big polluters reduce their pollutants and giving provinces and municipalities more power to work towards these things as well. If we were all to work together, the change could be so much more positive. We wouldn't have to worry about a 55 year old man who loses his job as his company moves to southern Asia, and feels defeated in that he's too old to go back to school or get re-trained to do something else. We wouldn't have to see call-centre economies popping up around these now failing industrial areas. We could meet Kyoto targets and keep a little sunshine shining. So while I admit, the Conservative plan fails in that it doesn't adhere to the prescription of the day, I like it because it projects the opinion that we should help our industry. And while I admit, the other plans laid forth do meet the prescription of the day, I don't like them because they subscribe to the notion that we can't all work together to promote change, and that they fail to address what we should do with all of these people who lose their jobs because of it and who won't be able to afford things like school or re-training because they don't have a job. The environment issue absolutely trumps financial gain and the status quo. But why the opposition to working with industry instead of against them?