"Economic Update"

[Thorgnor]

I do... but just to clarify, you don't think there are elements of Western seperatism in the current formulation of the CPC party? Even if they play the background and do little things that seem inocuous at the time? Things like precipitating a national constitutional struggle and then agitating the regions against one another?

[SmoothedShredder]

I support breaking up the nation into more provincially lead units. Canada is too big geographically, too skewed and diluted in terms of it's population and interests...

We've been dancing around separation for a long time. Newfoundland wants out... there's a healthy Separation movement in Quebec... the West feels alienated... Ontario's had it's head up it's beautiful ass for 100 years... and PEI... well they're just fucked.

I think we could handle it... this federal government thing is getting pretty dysfunctional... If things were more provincial... perhaps citizens would feel they had more of a say in what happens in a democracy... these huge nation-state democracies are way too far reaching and over-zealous.

To me it seems like such a simple solution... instead of painting everyone else as such a bad guy... let em do what they like. It's not like any of the provinces are physically going to move... you can still go there if you like. And solutions to problems will come faster and be more tailor made than being bogged down in waiting for the Federal bureaucracy to hand down a ruling based on the interest of the nation-state.

[d_rawk]

and PEI... well they're just fuÇked.

Love it :laugh:

[SmoothedShredder]

totalitarian seperatists from out West.

I don't think that makes any sense. Those first two words don't go together and mean anything.

It could me the most generalized statement ever!

[Thorgnor]

look em up... they both have meaning, most importantly they have meaning in relation to comments the party has made regarding their stance on crime and the fact that they still represent a group of people who desired seperatism for the Western provinces.

hate to quote wiki again but think about the new rules for drivers racing (and here I'm arguing against a climate of totalitarianism)...

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a concept used to describe political systems where a state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private life. Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of an official all-embracing ideology and propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that controls the state, personality cults, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics.

If they can't have it their way, you will.

PS. I'm exagerating.

Edited December 6, 2008 by Guest

[Birdy]

Exaggerating or going off the deep-end?

I don't entirely rule out that there's a minute amount of a dead and long gone western separatist movement maybe lingering around the CPC, but I surely don't attribute it the kind of strength you do.

[Thorgnor]

Of course you can't attribute that kind of force to the dead and long gone western separatist movement, you'd be admitting a mistake by supporting the CPC, or of their fear mongering about the Bloc's support for the coalition. If you think these guys can put it aside, even after gaining all the power they need to make it possible, then why can't the Bloc put their ideas aside if they become a slave to their signature?

Check out the papers from out West, the movement is neither long gone nor dead.

Edited December 6, 2008 by Guest

[Birdy]

Recently revived by the prospect of a coalition government?

It's not like i'm afraid that admitting what you're implying is true will show you all that I made some grave mistake. I don't operate with such motives. And I really don't care.

I just don't think it's to the level that you imagine it to be, that's all. You've admitted that you've exaggerated, and that you've fear mongered and I *think* just from reading what you wrote in the language of your choice, you might be going a bit over the top with your exaggeration. Like i said, I don't disagree that there's a trace element of it within the party, I disagree that western separatism precipitated a national constitutional struggle. Rather, I think this stems from the long and deeply rooted rivalry between the traditional Conservative party and the Liberals and the want to see each others demise.

And of course, Stephen Harper really wanting a majority government.

Edited December 6, 2008 by Guest

[Thorgnor]

I think Steve knew exactly what he was doing and everything is going according to plan for him.

And like I've said before I actually don't think it's much of a step from this crime bill they want to a type of totalitarianism. I didn't say this was brought on specifically BY Western seperstism, but that at the root of the CPC ideology is NOT working with the ENEMY, whoever that happens to conveniently be today.

They are opportunists of the very worst type...

they are credible.

I don't ever expect to change your mind ( ), and it is a ok with me that you agree with conservative economists, but I believe that they are being used by Religious and other Ideologues in the party to advance their own agendas. I believe that the strong fundamental religious views forwarded by CPC social policies, which they are intent on ramming down the whole of Canada's throats, regardless of the size of their mandate, puts Canada at risk.

And I also believe that this is the intention of no small group within the party, and I see them as strongly represented in the upper eschelons of the CPC. Deb Gray, retired, but an advisor nonetheless, recently on the CBC called for more Western dissention and a rejuvenation of the seperatism movement. I used "fear-mongering" to demonstrate the way this government has divided us.

Edited December 6, 2008 by Guest

[SmoothedShredder]

I'm sorry... my point is basically, your posts are riddled with hyperbole. If you're against fear mongering you'd do alot better avoiding using that tactic in your own argument. Maybe provide a solution or two, or example of someone who's actually improving, or trying to improve the horrible situation it appears you are describing.

[Birdy]

Government, as in everyone. I agree that Harper is the instigator in this huge mess, but the Opposition certainly are no saints themselves. They had the claws out on a moments notice and couldn't put them away when the CP started back-peddling. It's apparent the CP is unwilling to work with the Opposition, just as much as it's apparent the Opposition is unwilling to work with the government. No-one is any better. No-one wants to work with each other. And really, really Smoothedshredder was right when he wrote the Opposition's only chord of similarity and common ground was/is self-preservation. How is that working for Canada? It's not.

We've been divided by the reactions of the whole lot of them.

The only good thing that I've seen come out of this is the talking amongst my friends who normally care less about politics and don't vote, asking me what's up with this situation, and actually starting to show a few signs of concern. Whether this has any longevity is still to be determined. But for once, it seems as though Canadians are starting to open their eyes... even if it's just a teeny bit wider.

Wider?

Hmmmm...

We've chatted about the religious ideology of social conservatism and you know where I stand on what the motives of this party are. I don't think we'll see anything getting 'rammed down throats'.

[Thorgnor]

My hyperbolous point, my dear friend, is that this coalition WAS working together, and if we are willing to put aside the motivations of a percentage of those who represent extremes in the CPC party, why are we not willing, upon thorough examination, to respect that the Bloc may put away it's seperatist ideologies for a few moments of cooperation. The government declared in the content of the economic update that they were going to put ideological partisanship ahead of what was going to be consensually passable. The multiple other political parties represented in the coalition put aside ideologial differences in order to form, even if that was in the best interest of the parties themselves. The need for continued funding is both obviously self-serving as well as something that serves the needs of those who cannot afford to fund the party they vote for directly, so yes, we collectively pay for the poor to have a voice, that is something I believe is morally defensible. I consider efforts to silence these voices, even serruptitiously through removing their funding, to be reprehensible. I despise despotic rulers and Mr.Harper has moved to make this a one party state. The measures removed after the massive curfuffle were all things "the party feels very strongly about" (Stevie Hizzle). In other words, this party also feels very strongly about removing much of a women's right to move for pay equity through legal means. This is not partisan, it is unethical. And we blindly pray that good old Steve is gonna keep an even keel and pull us out of this mess, or else we're flirting with seccession by supporting the alternative? My posts my be "hyperbole", but don't mistake style for a lack of content.

[SaggyBalls]

"your posts are riddled with hyperbole. If you're against fear mongering you'd do alot better avoiding using that tactic in your own argument. Maybe provide a solution or two, or example of someone who's actually improving, or trying to improve the horrible situation it appears you are describing."

+1

[SaggyBalls]

"My hyperbolous point, my dear friend, is that this coalition WAS working together, and if we are willing to put aside the motivations of a percentage of those who represent extremes in the CPC party, why are we not willing, upon thorough examination, to respect that the Bloc may put away it's seperatist ideologies for a few moments of cooperation. The government declared in the content of the economic update that they were going to put ideological partisanship ahead of what was going to be consensually passable. The multiple other political parties represented in the coalition put aside ideologial differences in order to form, even if that was in the best interest of the parties themselves. The need for continued funding is both obviously self-serving as well as something that serves the needs of those who cannot afford to fund the party they vote for directly, so yes, we collectively pay for the poor to have a voice, that is something I believe is morally defensible. I consider efforts to silence these voices, even serruptitiously through removing their funding, to be reprehensible. I despise despotic rulers and Mr.Harper has moved to make this a one party state. The measures removed after the massive curfuffle were all things "the party feels very strongly about" (Stevie Hizzle). In other words, this party also feels very strongly about removing much of a women's right to move for pay equity through legal means. This is not partisan, it is unethical. And we blindly pray that good old Steve is gonna keep an even keel and pull us out of this mess, or else we're flirting with seccession by supporting the alternative? My posts my be "hyperbole", but don't mistake style for a lack of content."

haven't you essentially told us that ad nauseum for the past 6 months or more?

[SaggyBalls]

"We've chatted about the religious ideology of social conservatism and you know where I stand on what the motives of this party are. I don't think we'll see anything getting 'rammed down throats'."

I don't either and that's what's so ultimitely subversive about it.

We suck it up with a straw cause we're suckers being sold a line of bullshit that we don't need.

[Birdy]

I can't win this on here so I won't even try.

All I can say is time will show who exactly is right. I'm not thinking the voice of the religious right is going to be legitimized, but I could be wrong. Until time passes, it's useless for us to continue having the same discussions, when both sides are nothing but pure speculation.

[Big Wooly Mammoth]

I don't think that the Libs/NDB/Bloc would have any problem workin with Harper's Conservative Party if they felt that he could be trusted. he has, unfortunately, proved that he cannot be trusted. That is the real cause of these problems. If Harper comes out with a make nice throne speach that the opposition supports, he is very likely to then come out with a budget or other confidence motion that makes them vote against the gov't which would then result in an election. If they vote down the throne speach they'd be given the chance to form a coalition.

[Birdy]

I don't think that the Libs/NDB/Bloc would have any problem workin with Harper's Conservative Party if they felt that he could be trusted.

Did you watch the debates?

Jesus, i just checked my voicemail and had one from "Canadians for Democracy" with some girl reminding me that Canadians elected the Conservative government with a strong mandate as a minority back in October, but now the Liberals and NDP have formed a coalition with the 'separatists' to overthrow the government. She told me that Stephen Harper is asking all Canadians to speak out about this matter and I was to push 1 for further information.

Edited December 7, 2008 by Guest

[SaggyBalls]

eww

it's sickening that so much money can be set toward this and not, say, funding foodbanks in Oshawa or St Thomas.

[Birdy]

It's the holidays! Start up a canned food drive at work. Put on a fundraiser. Be the change.

That's my plan.

Edited December 7, 2008 by Guest

[can-o-phish]

I don't think that the Libs/NDB/Bloc would have any problem workin with Harper's Conservative Party if they felt that he could be trusted. he has, unfortunately, proved that he cannot be trusted. That is the real cause of these problems. If Harper comes out with a make nice throne speach that the opposition supports, he is very likely to then come out with a budget or other confidence motion that makes them vote against the gov't which would then result in an election. If they vote down the throne speach they'd be given the chance to form a coalition.

With the Liberals still lacking a leader and much grumbling over Dion's speech, I'll be surprised if the coalition does last until January 26th.

The opposition parties are pissed that Harper sidestepped a vote of non-confidence and I expect another vote of non-confidence regardless of a coalition being formed or not. They don't trust Harper and why should they? There is a clip of Harper addressing Parliament that there would be a vote of confidence on December 8th and then he went for prorogue.

Most Canadians don't have faith in Dion as leader, nor does the LIberal Party.

Can an interim Liberal leader be found if Dion steps down before January 26th that would strengthen a coalition? That's the big question because if not, then if a vote of nc is held and the government is toppled with no coalition, it would see an election that the Liberals would probably lose more seats. Who's going to vote for a party when there is a question as to who will lead that party and possibly become PM?

The worst part is that at a time when all parties of our government should be dealing with the economy and other important issues, they are now in full political swing and the country is left bleeding.

If there is an election I'm curious as to the voter turnout. The last one was the weakest in Canadian history. I expect the next election will have a huge voter turnout as all of this has grabbed Canadians attention.

[can-o-phish]

It's the holidays! Start up a canned food drive at work. Put on a fundraiser. Be the change.

That's my plan.

It's a good plan Birdy! I've already taken part in volunteer work that people who are less fortunate are benefitting from. If our government won't be the change we still have the opportunity in many forms.

[Birdy]

Yup. I'm done relying on government. It's been a major point of dissatisfaction in my life. I'm finding recently that I'm able to motivate enough people to accomplish some cool things without them. If more people be the change, we *could* change. It's just getting out there and inspiring others to get off the sofa and do stuff. Not an easy task, but i think if you can get 3-5 people on board with a plan, you win. We win.

Edited December 7, 2008 by Guest

[Thorgnor]

"We've chatted about the religious ideology of social conservatism and you know where I stand on what the motives of this party are. I don't think we'll see anything getting 'rammed down throats'."

I don't either and that's what's so ultimitely subversive about it.

We suck it up with a straw cause we're suckers being sold a line of bullshit that we don't need.

I say it,

it's hyperbole and redendancy,

you say it, YT,

it's

sublime genius... +1

:offline:

Thanks for the solutions, Birdy. They're actually really thoughtful and easy to accomplish. I really hadn't thought about that.

[AD]

heard an interesting conversation on the radio this morning with desmond morten (sp?), a canadian historian and professor emeritus at mcgill. he was lamenting the fact that very very few in the media knew about how the parliamentary democratic system works and thus were painting the story as a 'constitutional crisis' which largely influences the perception by canadians. he also questioned (non-partisanly) whether stephen harper properly learned about our system while at UofC and that it would be interesting to speak to his teachers there and see what the deal is.

he (the speaker on the radio) thought the public's reaction would have been much different if the media were educated about how things really work in our system.

i think it's an obvious point that we've been debating here for a week now, but good to see that it's getting some play.