x

[MamaBurnsy]

Hand guns are bad for your health.

I agree

[Birdy]

I have to admit, and maybe you could call this ignorance... but, I really find politics to be extremely transparent and simple.. you talk about "family." Why do you think the CPC have such a policy?? Because that is the sector of the population that they are campaigning towards. Conservatives equal containment. And what I mean by that is, they don't want change, they are "conserving." They do not want to think outside of the box, unless it will guarantee them enough votes to get a majority so that they can continue to pursue the party politics of their nature. This includes providing opportunities and or attracting big business to invest in Canada. Therefore, they create more jobs.... And more people work, however, they are anti--union so these jobs are provided with the condition that whoever is providing them is satisfied with the profit they make before they spend it on their staff, or workers etc... Tax breaks are not intended to benefit the average Canadian, it is smoke and mirrors, I think you need to see through that. It will be money that is taken away from our social programs that many Canadians depend on... Conservatives are capitalists... Survival of the fittest. real simple.

i agree and even though i disagree with a majority of the tenets the CPC adheres to, i'm going to vote for them because they'll bring me as close to what i think our 'ideal government' should be. strip away all of their social policies, their foreign policies, etc. and compare only this- the size of government the liberals will bring to the table, vs. the size of government the CPC will bring to the table. that is why i've chosen to vote the way i have. it's not about being left wing or right wing to me.. i've taken myself out of the political spectrum and am looking down at it, shaking my head.

there you go hamilton.. the point i've been beating around the bush in making

[Booche]

Help me Jesus!

[Hux]

When Harper's PM, we're going to use our $1,200 vote rebate, er childcare cheque, to take a side trip to attend my cousins (recently banned in Canada) gay wedding in Amsterdam while we're serving our country in Iraq. Then when we get back we may visit Quebec - if our passports haven't expired.

God Bless Canada!

[ggrtrhhrtgg]

ok Birdy, you are suggesting that the CPC will have less control over the citizens of the country-- I understand.... however, if they relinquish some of their control, it will leave a vacuum, and who benefits, or gains control?? The people??

I would think big business would have more control over our lives, and may I remind you, we don't have the opportunity to control big business, they are not democratically elected.

That is the reason why I am not, and I will never-- vote conservative. But, hey, to each their own. Great discussion Birdy.

Edited December 9, 2005 by Guest

[ollie]

strip away all of their social policies, their foreign policies, etc. and compare only this- the size of government the liberals will bring to the table, vs. the size of government the CPC will bring to the table. that is why i've chosen to vote the way i have.

How can you just "strip away" such incredibly significant parts of their platform? You'd be happy with a government that strives to limit your personal freedom and also supports the war in Iraq just because it would be "smaller"?

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Can you give us another example of this family focus? Sounds like rhetoric with very little substance...

I that's pretty much how James Dobson uses it. This is someone who advises parents on where to inflict pain on their children without leaving marks. He also makes use of his certification as a family counsellor to make pronouncements on US foreign policy. Pretty handy stuff, family-focused rhetoric.

[Birdy]

strip away all of their social policies' date=' their foreign policies, etc. and compare only this- the size of government the liberals will bring to the table, vs. the size of government the CPC will bring to the table. that is why i've chosen to vote the way i have.[/quote']

How can you just "strip away" such incredibly significant parts of their platform? You'd be happy with a government that strives to limit your personal freedom and also supports the war in Iraq just because it would be "smaller"?

easily... i strive for lesser government ollie.. a government who wouldn't have a chance to either 'limit' or 'increase' any type of personal freedom by way of legislation. a government who would not support a war on Iraq, a government who would not support public daycare, a government who recognizes that it is not within their realm to decide what the definition of marriage should be, a government who's primary focus would be to ensure individual freedom by way of non-legislation and to protect its citizens from evil. with this philosophy - libertarianism, it's easy to strip conventional political parties of their platforms because we believe in minimal government.. platforms generally are the 'what we are going to do if elected' statements made by political parties who believe the government has a pretty significant role to play in politics. so with this philosophy, which i believe wholeheartedly, what am i supposed to do? libertarianism is my 'ideal', but unfortunately is still a relatively modern concept in liberal thinking and would absolutely destroy the current balance of politics in the western world. so i vote the way i do in hopes of inching closer and closer to my ideal.

[ollie]

I lean libertarian as well. The Conservative Party of Canada is not libertarian. Why do you think they are? I know the Conservative (and Republican) mantra is "less government" but that doesn't automatically make them the most libertarian party. You say you want a government that would not support the war in Iraq. A Stephen Harper government would support the war in Iraq. Why are you voting for them again?

P.S. Just so you don't feel like we're piling on, I appreciate your point of view.

[Birdy]

I lean libertarian as well. The Conservative Party of Canada is not libertarian. Why do you think they are? I know the Conservative (and Republican) mantra is "less government" but that doesn't automatically make them the most libertarian party. You say you want a government that would not support the war in Iraq. A Stephen Harper government would support the war in Iraq. Why are you voting for them again?

P.S. Just so you don't feel like we're piling on, I appreciate your point of view.

lol.. man at times i do feel like i'm being piled on.. SERIOUSLY!

you are totally right.. the CPC is not libertarian, but they do believe in lesser government, which is the fundamental KEY to libertarianism. i'm not the type to sit an election out and there are no libertarian candidates running in my constituency. so?

[bradm]

a government who would not support a war on Iraq

First, the war is in Iraq, not "on" Iraq. (Similarly, WW II was in France, not on France.)

Also, do you mean "a" (as in "any") war in Iraq, or just the current war? (To me, there may not be justification for the current war, but I'd like our government to be prepared and willing to send troops to Iraq [or anywhere else, for that matter] if there was a justified need.)

Aloha,

Brad

[SevenSeasJim]

, but I'd like our government to be prepared and willing to send troops to Iraq [or anywhere else, for that matter] if there was a justified need.)

Aloha,

Brad

Who's justification? Yours? Canada? UN? Public Opinion?

[ollie]

Let's see what Wikipedia has to say about libertarianism...

Libertarianism

Specifically, this sentence, emphasis added by me:

Libertarians see themselves as consistent supporters of maximum freedom AND minimum state intervention in all human activities (where "freedom" is defined as negative liberty).

I just don't see how the Conservative's push for smaller government (and have they really come out and blatantly said that thus far in the campaign?) equates to minimum state intervention in all human activities.

[Birdy]

Let's see what Wikipedia has to say about libertarianism...

Libertarianism

Specifically, this sentence, emphasis added by me:

Libertarians see themselves as consistent supporters of maximum freedom AND minimum state intervention in all human activities (where "freedom" is defined as negative liberty).

I just don't see how the Conservative's push for smaller government (and have they really come out and blatantly said that thus far in the campaign?) equates to minimum state intervention in all human activities.

if you haven't already gone here.. go here.. Libertarian Party of Canada

i don't think the conservatives advocate minimum state intervention in all human activities at all.. but when presented with a choice between the NDP, the Liberals or the Conservatives, in comparison to the other two, they do.

[ollie]

i don't think the conservatives advocate minimum state intervention in all human activities at all.. but when presented with a choice between the NDP, the Liberals or the Conservatives, in comparison to the other two, they do.

Ok, so is it your opinion that the Conservative party's push for less government trumps every other issue?

I'm curious if you'd still vote for them if they wanted to introduce legislation banning abortion. If so, is there any point at which you would favour looking at issues other than the size of the government?

(I realize I probably broke some internet debate rule by bringing up abortion. That and I really need to get back to work.)

[Birdy]

meg - what do you want me to say? i thought i had.. repeatedly, and you tell me it was rhetoric.

so?

i'm not really 'argumentative' and whereas you talk policy, i talk philosophy.. we're butting heads and i'm not really a head butter. that sounds weird.. "head butter"...

so, some more rhetoric for you, in terms of lesser government, giving parents back the right to make decisions for their kids in terms of education, daycare, blah blah blah, the CPC's lack of involvement in things like public daycare and 'involved' curriculum for students puts the onus of responsibility back in the hands of family where it should be.

[Birdy]

i don't think the conservatives advocate minimum state intervention in all human activities at all.. but when presented with a choice between the NDP' date=' the Liberals or the Conservatives, in comparison to the other two, they do.[/quote']

Ok, so is it your opinion that the Conservative party's push for less government trumps every other issue?

I'm curious if you'd still vote for them if they wanted to introduce legislation banning abortion. If so, is there any point at which you would favour looking at issues other than the size of the government?

(I realize I probably broke some internet debate rule by bringing up abortion. That and I really need to get back to work.)

well when you believe that lesser government, not the Conservative idea of lesser government, but the libertarian idea of lesser government, could truly solve a majority of the woes and perils of today's society, than yes.. it has to trump every other issue.. because a step closer to getting my ideal, is a step in the right direction. it really is hard in light of social issues though, because liberals and libertarians alike agree when it comes to identifying social concerns, even though our ways of "dealing" with those concerns are a world apart. honestly ollie, when it comes to abortion, and if the CPC wanted to outlaw it, i'd be at a loss.. i probably wouldn't vote.

[Thorgnor]

Y'know? I think the reason why government doesn't keep it's promises is that there is more than one part to the government and the parties involved are aligned against one another. Just because we elect them for it doesn't mean that the other two thirds of our country doesn't disagree with the way in which we plan to do these things. Conservatives + Bloc + NDP = more votes than the Liberals... Paul's not a liar, he's an ineffectual, powerless figure-head.

[Hux]

"I don't know all the facts on Iraq, but I think we should work closely with the Americans."

- Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, March 25th 2002.

I don't have a source for this, but it is accurate:

In April, 2003, Harper went on Fox News in the U.S. and attacked the Chretien government's failure to support the war in Iraq. At the time, CTV.ca reported his remarks this way: "Harper said he endorsed the war and said he was speaking 'for the silent majority' of Canadians. Only in Quebec, with its 'pacifist tradition,' are most people opposed to the war, Harper said. 'Outside of Quebec, I believe very strongly the silent majority of Canadians is strongly supportive,' the Canadian Alliance leader says."

He and the then-foreign affairs critic for the Alliance, Stockwell Day, also wrote The Wall Street Journal denouncing Canada's decision to "stay neutral" in the war.

The Province recently reported that "Harper now claims he 'did not advocate sending additional soldiers or equipment to Iraq,' but merely 'insisted we should morally support' Bush." However, on March 26, 2003, six days after the U.S.-led coalition began bombing Iraq, Harper told the House of Commons: "We should be there with our allies when it counts against Saddam Hussein."

In August, 2003, Harper told Maclean's that Canada's refusal to support the coalition meant that "Canada remains alienated from its allies, shut out of the reconstruction process to some degree, unable to influence events. There is no upside to the position Canada took."

[AD]

hey hux, where is the Liberal Party's platform?

ad

[Hux]

It's being rolled out....as is the NDP's.

It's going to be a long campaign, politically it's not always wise to blow your platform load in one burst like Harper has, ie. people forget what you announced two days ago, and look where it's got him in the polls....nowhere yet.

[d_rawk]

"I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible." - (Paul Martin, North Bay Nugget, April 30, 2003).

"I don't think there is any doubt, if there ever was... that [saddam Hussein] does have weapons of mass destruction. ...he had lied and that he is continuing to lie." - (Paul Martin, Calgary Herald, March 7, 2003)

"The problem is...we know well that there is proliferation of nuclear weapons and that many of the weapons that Saddam Hussein had, for example, we do not know where they are, so that means the terrorists have access to all that." - (Paul Martin, Globe and Mail, May 11, 2004)

"Once the war in Iraq began, Canada was far from neutral." - (Paul Martin, CTV News, May 21, 2004)

[d_rawk]

RE: The Harper FOX news thing, it definately is accurate. He also wrote a whiny letter to the Washington Post at about the same time apologizing 'on behalf' of Canadians.

Hmm. Reread your post and am wondering whether the Washington Post thing was just that paper reporting on the Wall Street Journal letter, or a seperate incident. Memory bad.

[AD]

It's being rolled out....as is the NDP's.

It's going to be a long campaign, politically it's not always wise to blow your platform load in one burst like Harper has, ie. people forget what you announced two days ago, and look where it's got him in the polls....nowhere yet.

Yeah but.... Shouldn't everyone have a platform ready to go at any time? Isn't it a mission statement, regardless of what anyone else thinks? If it's all action / reaction it's merely promises, and promises are always broken.

If someone really wants to lead the country you'd think they'd have what the party stands for figured out way before an election is called.

I know this is pie-in-the-sky idealism, but it makes sense.

AD

[Hux]

Shouldn't everyone have a platform ready to go at any time? Isn't it a mission statement, regardless of what anyone else thinks? If it's all action / reaction it's merely promises, and promises are always broken.

If someone really wants to lead the country you'd think they'd have what the party stands for figured out way before an election is called.

The platform is ready. So I agree with everything you say, but if you're talking political strategy there are different ways of doing things.