Micheal Moore - "Canada 51st State?"

[Hux]

I agree GM, except that I will hold Freeker by the Speaker and his vote for "Ed!" personally responsible should there be a Conservative Gov't.... :: ::

[Rob Not Bob]

The IMDb ( Internet Movie Database ) lists him as being alive as well... just for proof. I knew he was alive, even though I was clearly tired when I got my authors mixed up.

Durp, I could have sworn that he had passed ... with so many of the titans no longer with us (Heinlein, Asimov, Herbert) I guess I just lumped him in with the rest.

RnB

does Douglas Adams count?

[TonyRage]

I got word from my good friend ( I can't tell you what his job is, but you can take a few quality guesses ) that terrorists are considering a hit on Canada. These odds will go up dramatically if Harper gets in.

I think are biggest fear is a "terroist" attack before the election that will propel the conservatives into power. Sort of a reverse Madrid bombing. The terroists have nothing to gain from attacking Canada, but the Americans do.

[Jaimoe]

RnB

does Douglas Adams count?

He's a giant, and he's dead too.

[Jaimoe]

[quote

The terroists have nothing to gain from attacking Canada, but the Americans do.

It has everything to do with radical Afgans being furious that Canada has desecrated their holy land by having troops there.

[TonyRage]

Oh...and the conservative/bloc alliance will probably not happen. Gilles Duceppes is leader with the most social program. he was a communist in college and has said many times that he does not see eye-to-eye with Harper about anything save increased powere for provincial governments. Plus, his members will vote how they want. A coalition will only help them in certain legislation, but not to do thinks like increase military spending, privatise health-care, put obstacles onto abortion, etc.

[snarfmaster C]

I'm sorry for generalising all LIberals as liars and thieves. I'm not happy with them, and would like to see a move to the left, as well as a move to the more transparent.... I guess my strong political beliefs got me too worked up and I spoke (or typed) too strongly. I didn't mean to offend you Hux, or any other LIberals out there.

I hate to see the defeatist attitude though - the 'lesser of two evils' vote. don't do it!! seriously, if all the people that have had enough of the Liberals and don't agree with the Conservative's platform were to vote NDP, Green or other - that would give the left (or other) a fighting chance. at least it might get the Greens into the leadership debate next time around... and from there who knows, eh?!

i think the liberals are counting on the 'anyone but the conservatives' vote. i'm not giving it to em.

[onthejourney]

reeally quickly here....

either way, the lesser of the 2 evils things sux. But, as I see it, when you vote someone in your riding in, that you want, even if it becomes a conservative gov't (which won't be by much if it is) they alone do not pass laws in this county. Everyone in the house has a say. I look forward to the many seats that the green party will get in BC as this will put a new voice in the house when new decisions/discussions are being tabled.

kay..off to little feat...... ::

[Slippy]

I really don't think the Green Party will win any seats in BC. It's gonna be almost entirely Conservative with a handfull of Liberals and a couple of NDP in Vancouver. The Green do have support but not nearly enough to win any ridings.

I really want to Vote NDP but I'm worried it's splitting the left vote just like the Reform/Alliance and PC split the right vote for the past 11 years.

Look how Nader helped Bush win 2000 (along with Bush cheating) Nader held the difference in Florida. A few seats won by a few thousand (maybe even hundred) votes are going to determine who wins the minority in Monday's election.

[Hux]

Good points Slippy.....that's another thing, this is the first election since 1988 (!) that there is a single right-wing party, (previous there was the PC's, + Reform, then Alliance)

So, all other issues aside, conservatives in this country have a lot more electoral power this time around.

Hey earthfreak, don't sweat it! (I'll respond to your PM when I'm not so exhausted!)

I guess some people are just not going to believe the strategic voting stuff, hopefully they don't learn the hard way = think Nader.

[MoMack]

But we shouldn't have to vote strategically. Its just so un-demorcratic isn't it? Its frustrating and unacceptable. First past the post is a bad system.

Good points Slippy.....that's another thing, this is the first election since 1988 (!) that there is a single right-wing party, (previous there was the PC's, + Reform, then Alliance)

So, all other issues aside, conservatives in this country have a lot more electoral power this time around.

Hey earthfreak, don't sweat it! (I'll respond to your PM when I'm not so exhausted!)

I guess some people are just not going to believe the strategic voting stuff, hopefully they don't learn the hard way = think Nader.

[shainhouse]

I am happy that I live in a city where a vote for the NDP is a vote that matters. I am a staunch supporter of the NDP, and I agree with most of their platforms. However, voting Liberal would help make sure the conservatives don't win, and that is extremely important. There is already one US, I don't want a 51st state. Still, I'm voting NDP, because I just can't stand the thieving, lying Liberals. Just conservatives in the closet IMO. Even if it's a vote that gives the conservatives more power, I can't vote for the Liberals. just not gonna happen.

[tigger]

2 party systems are the worst thing for any democracy,look south,all the big guys have to do is sleep with two parties to wield their desires.I welcome a changing of the guard,Liberal party has been very shady as well as the P.C.'s.Think federally act locally ,screw that shit about anything other than liberal is a vote for Harper....

[The_eKuhnunist]

Strategic voting didn't work when trying to get Mike Harris out of the Ontario government. Then it was much more organized with a pretty clear opposition leader (either NDP or Liberal) to vote for in each riding.

A vote for a party is a vote FOR a party. Not against another. If we keep this up, maybe we should change our ballots to cross out anyone we don't want to have in power.

[Hux]

So how come nobody can debunk the Ralph Nader example if strategic voting is a crock - let's hear it???

[Booche]

I, for one, look forward to watching Hux serve some "I told you so" soup should the Conservatives win a minority government. Same thing for Freeker as well.

Pray it doesnt happen.............

[AD]

It has everything to do with radical Afgans being furious that Canada has desecrated their holy land by having troops there.

Uh, no... The 'radical' Afghans know that the Canadians aren't anywhere near their holy land (Mecca, in Saudi). Most if not all of the Canadians are stationed in Kabul, the radicals rarely come into the city to attack ISAF troops (which would be a death wish). They stay in the hills and behead wanderers...

And fat chance a radical Afghan is gonna attack Canada in Canada...

AD

[MarcO]

Some food for thought, from the Globe and Mail:

The safe choice is to do no harm

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - Page A16

Commentators have wrongly characterized the 2004 general election as dirty, derogatory and demeaning. In fact, it has been one of the most illuminating of recent times.

The campaign has reaped a bumper crop of choice for voters. Those Quebeckers steeped in parochialism can opt for their now-permanent party of protest, the Bloc Québécois. Romantics can throw their lot in with dreamy Jack Layton's New Democrats or, for a change of pace, the blissful future promised by the Greens.

Then there are the two entities with a chance of forming a government: the reformed Conservatives under Stephen Harper and the perennial default choice of Canadian politics, the Liberals, now with Paul Martin at the helm.

For 11 years, the Liberals have governed Canada, and, by and large, they've governed it well. Simply ask yourself a variant of Ronald Reagan's famous question: Are you and your country better off today than you were a decade ago? The answer must be a resounding yes.

A previous generation of governments, Liberal and Tory both, had so abysmally managed our economy that Canada was keeping company with the likes of Belgium and Italy when the Chrétien Liberals came to power in 1993. Today, the Canadian economy is the envy of the industrialized world, providing the foundation for social investment. Did this turnaround occur on the backs of the provinces and other recipients of federal funds? Obviously. Was it justified by the circumstances? Just as obvious.

Nor was finally wrestling the deficit to the ground Mr. Martin's only achievement. Working with the provinces, he also put the Canada Pension Plan on a sound footing. And then, just five years after his shock fiscal therapy, he authored the largest tax cut in Canadian history.

Yet, in other important ways, Mr. Martin and the government he served came up decidedly short. They repeatedly failed to produce a serious effort at health-care reform, preferring to purchase temporary provincial peace rather than tackle the real problems plaguing the system. They lacked the will to confront the running sore of aboriginal policies that never seem to lift aboriginal peoples out of misery. Nor could the party of Lester Pearson muster the intellectual power to put in place a modern foreign policy.

Finally, like most governments long in the tooth, the Liberals grew sloppy, even cavalier, with power and money. And so we were introduced to the concept of friendly dictators, democratic deficits and, ultimately, the sponsorship scandal. The Liberals took ownership of the crisis of public ethics that had propelled them to power in the first place.

That said, the point of the current electoral exercise is not so much to judge the kind of government the Liberals have provided as it is to evaluate the kind they would provide with another mandate.

To put it succinctly, Paul Martin, or whoever is inhabiting his body, has proved a monumental disappointment since becoming Prime Minister six months ago. His pronouncements have displayed all the consistency of Pablum. Intent on winning every vote in the country, he lived in fear of offending someone, somewhere, somehow. On Iraq and Kyoto, he was incomprehensible. On same-sex marriage, he swung both ways. On missile defence co-operation, first he was openly for it, then secretly for it. He had two Supreme Court openings, but boxed himself into a process corner.

He made enemies of the meritorious (witness Stéphane Dion) and promoted the mediocre (come on down, Jean Lapierre). The only difference between his political manipulations and those of his "friendly dictator" predecessor was that the latter didn't leave bloodied fingerprints at the crime scene.

On health care, we have heard much rhetoric. But Mr. Martin's ideas for shortening waiting lists remain fanciful. As a general rule, he has beseeched voters to count on his reputation for solutions rather than proposing any.

But does he deserve to be thrown out?

The country's justified but disproportionate anger over the sponsorship scandal is insufficient cause by itself to impose capital punishment on Mr. Martin's Liberals. The McGuinty budget in Ontario is infuriating but not germane.

The answer to the question of who can best govern Canada requires a close examination not just of the devil you know but of the alternative. Which brings us to Mr. Harper and the Conservatives.

The greatest argument in their favour is the time-for-change imperative. All institutions require periodic cleansing to remove sclerotic thinking and allow for renewal. On issues such as health care, Mr. Harper is better positioned to bring new approaches to old problems.

Over the past year, the young Conservative Leader has proved more adept than generally presumed at building bridges, as demonstrated by his role in merging the Alliance and Tories, and finally creating a viable alternative for Canadians. But merged entities take time to gel. And the Conservatives have not had ample time. As we have seen throughout the campaign, the new party speaks with many contradictory voices, a cacophony of confusion that needs to be sorted out.

What of Stephen Harper himself, the man who would be prime minister? We may know Paul Martin all too well, but we hardly know his challenger at all. Some of what we know demands greater explanation, most notably the sentiments contained in the infamous Alberta firewall letter. It was incumbent upon Mr. Harper to provide a greater comfort level rather than respond to challengers with quiet contempt or truculence.

Mr. Harper is an exceedingly intelligent man. But his position on same-sex marriage, for instance, is either dumb or, more probably, disingenuous. However one feels about specific issues, the courts play a legitimate role in Canadian society. After all, it was politicians, not judges, who conceived, wrote and adopted the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Harper's assertion that the judiciary would respect a free vote of the House of Commons, presumably a vote to restrict marriage to a man and a woman, flies in the face of this assigned role. Indeed, Mr. Harper was not such a stout defender of parliamentary supremacy when elected officials voted to restrict third-party advertising during election campaigns. In that instance, he rightly sought Charter relief from Parliament's oppression of free-speech rights.

So what are his principles here? And why won't he tell us whether he would use the notwithstanding clause, a legitimate constitutional tool, on same-sex marriage?

One is left to conclude that the Conservative Leader prefers the 1867 version of our Constitution, with its explicit division of powers between the provinces and Ottawa, to the 1982 version granting rights to individuals and groups and conferring power upon courts to adjudicate these.

For Mr. Harper, checks and balances would come in a different form. He intends to gradually move to an elected Senate without the inconvenience of constitutional negotiation. And, as a proponent of smaller central government, he favours devolving power to the provinces.

It is at this juncture that the right-of-centre Mr. Harper finds common cause with the left-of-centre Bloc Québécois. We worry that Mr. Harper would both weaken the capacity of Ottawa to govern in the name of Canada and that his party's possible alignment with the Bloc in a minority Parliament would give succour to the separatist movement.

Finally, and oddly, Mr. Harper, a graduate of the fiscally dry Reform Party, has put forward a platform that sails too close to the deficit wind for our comfort. A high quality of life can be built only on the foundation of a strong economy, and a strong economy requires governments to provide a stable fiscal environment. The Conservative platform is inadequately prudent in this regard.

And so we find ourselves in the same conundrum as millions of voters. On the one hand, the Liberals are worn and tired and their leader has not lived up to his billing. But he's performed well in previous incarnations.

On the other hand, Stephen Harper, a product of Central Canadian caution and Alberta's can-do frontier mentality, represents genuine change. Yet there are troubling signs that he has not yet matured into a truly national leader.

As with medicine, the most important principle of Canadian politics should be to do no harm. That means don't risk our fiscal health and don't gamble with our national unity.

We wish Mr. Martin had afforded himself the opportunity of an 18-month tryout before going to the polls. Now the voters have the opportunity to impose a probationary period themselves. Whichever party prevails Monday, a minority looks the most likely outcome. We believe Mr. Martin represents the less risky proposition and deserves a second chance to prove himself. We further believe the Conservatives could use more time to pull their new party together and make their positions and predispositions clearer.

Therefore, we urge a Liberal vote Monday -- not because they've earned the right to re-election but because, at the very least, we can count on them to do little harm and, at best, the near-death experience might help the old Paul Martin find himself and lead Canada more confidently into the future.

[Velvet]

Should I have recieved my voting thingy in the mail yet? What should I do if it doesn't arrive?

[Booche]

"What should I do if it doesn't arrive?"

Well, you could start by stopping the bicycling of your bicycle while drunk off your drunken clown-ass, ass-clown.

[bradm]

Should I have recieved my voting thingy in the mail yet? What should I do if it doesn't arrive?

According to Voting Is As Easy As 1 2 3 4, you can call Elections Canada at 1-800-463-6868 or use their Voter Information Service.

Aloha,

Brad

[TonyRage]

Call Elections Canada...NOW!

Voter Info service...

http://www.elections.ca/scripts/Pss/finded.aspx?L=e&page=newsearch

[Jaimoe]

It has everything to do with radical Afgans being furious that Canada has desecrated their holy land by having troops there.

Uh, no... The 'radical' Afghans know that the Canadians aren't anywhere near their holy land (Mecca, in Saudi). Most if not all of the Canadians are stationed in Kabul, the radicals rarely come into the city to attack ISAF troops (which would be a death wish). They stay in the hills and behead wanderers...

And fat chance a radical Afghan is gonna attack Canada in Canada...

AD

Uh, AD, I'm not an idiot. I know what Mecca is. My statement was in reference to my friend and to the conversations that he's had ( and is still having ) with moderate and radical Muslims regarding Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. The Muslims that he talks to say that ALL Muslim land is holy land.

In fairness, if you had the conversation that I had a few days ago, and you knew what my friend did for a living, it would have you concerned. It scared the hell out of me.

[AD]

Uh, AD, I'm not an idiot. I know what Mecca is. My statement was in reference to my friend and to the conversations that he's had ( and is still having ) with moderate and radical Muslims regarding Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. The Muslims that he talks to say that ALL Muslim land is holy land.

In fairness, if you had the conversation that I had a few days ago, and you knew what my friend did for a living, it would have you concerned. It scared the hell out of me.

SOrry, I was feeling pretty obtuse the other day when I posted that response. I guess I don't really know what's happening in the Muslim population here on the ground, hopefully everyone remains calm while Afghanistan votes and brings in new government over the next little while...

Cheers ::

ad

[AdamH]

Three middle east countries host Muslim holy sites: Saudi Arabia (Mecca), Syria (Median) and Israel(Dome of the Rock). Above and beyond the central three there is Hebron (Israel) and Mashad (Iran). Syria and Iran are already on the hotlist, there is growing de-stabilization in Saudi Arabia, and no conceivable end to the conflict in Israel. To any person it's clear that there's no quick resolution to this war. And so far there hasn't even been any justification!

If Canada keeps their hands out of an unjust military scenario and continues to focus on peacekeeping I think it's unlikely we will become a terrorist target. But if a Harper government decides, as he said in the debate, to "expand the Canadian military to allow for a range of capabilities" then we have something very real to worry about. And with Stockwell Day as our minister of foreign affairs, he will most likely push for strengthened relations with the U.S. which at this point means one thing only: Greater involvvement in Iraq and a promise to stay involved in future U.S. campaigns.

Day has said Canada should support the U.S. in Iraq even in the absence of a U.N. resolution. He has said he admires Israel's "open democratic processes" despite terrorism on both sides. That is something that worries me. Days religious fundamentalism is something that worries me.

A Conservative government is something that worries me.